-^^^n  school  tiur^r: 


iivN 


)OSt 


llnRARY 

yHIVERSlTY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

idVEKSIDE 


Hith  School  LiuriirL 

374  a 


;aN  JOSE 


GAL!  FORM  1 


DEBATERS'  HANDBOOK  SERIES 


TRADE  UNIONS 


DEBATERS' 
HANDBOOK  SERIES 


Enlargement  of  the  United  States  Navy 
(3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Direct  Primaries    (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Capital  Punishment 

Commission  Plan  of  Municipal  Govern- 
ment   (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Election  of  United  States  Senators  (2d  ed. 
rev.) 

Income  Tax    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl. ) 

Initiative  and  Referendum  (2d  ed.  rev. 
and  enl.) 

Central  Bank  of  the  United  States 

Woman  Suffrage    (2d  ed.  rev.) 

Municipal  Ownership 

Child  Labor 

Open  versus  Closed  Shop     (2d  ed.) 

Employment  of  Women 

Federal  Control  of  Interstate  Corporations 

Parcels  Post 

Compulsory  Arbitration  of  Industrial  Dis- 
putes 

Government  Ownership  of  Railroads 

Compulsory  Insurance 

Conservation  of  Natural  Resources 

Free  Trade  vs.  Protection 

Reciprocity 

Trade  Unions 

Other  titles  in  preparation 


Each  volume,  one  dollar  net 


^=^^^c^^0  6^4^ 


Debaters^    Handbook   Series 


SELECTED  ARTICLES 


ON 


TRADE  UNIONS 


COMPILED  BY 
EDNA   D.^'^ULLOCK 


MINNEAPOLIS 

THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 

1913 


4432 

387 


39^ 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE 

Out  of  the  wealth  of  literature  on  trade  unions,  a  limited 
selection  for  reprinting  is  planned  to  serve:  i.  as  a  gen- 
eral historical,  descriptive  and  critical  exposition  of  the  sub- 
ject, 2.  as  the  foundation  for  arguments  on  the  benefits  of 
trade  unions  to  their  members  and  to  society. 

Advanced  students  of  the  subject  may  see  no  need  of  the 
general  literature  of  so  time-worn  a  subject,  and  no  room 
for  argument  on  what  appears  to  be  a  one-sided  topic.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that  in  many  parts  of  our 
country,  particularly  where  agriculture  is  the  chief  industry, 
trade  unionism  is  absolutely  unknown  to  the  people,  except 
through  newspaper  publicity  given  when  some  outrage  of 
public  welfare  is  charged  against  unionism.  With  a  view 
to  making  this  handbook  useful  to  people  whose  sole  knowl- 
edge has  come  from  such  sources,  no  blindly  partisan  litera- 
ture has  been  reprinted.  The  publications  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  and  the  National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers are  listed  in  the  bibliography,  and  may  be  had  by 
corresponding  with  the  officers  of  those  organizations. 

The  bibliography  is  designed  to  be  comprehensive  enough 
to  be  of  use  to  advanced  students  of  the  subject  as  well  as 
to  the  general  public  and  the  debater. 

An  earlier  number  of  the  Debaters'  Handbook  Series  on 
the  Open  versus  the  Closed  Shop  contains  an  extensive 
bibliography.  Duplication  of  reprints  contained  in  the  earlier 
number  has  been  avoided. 

September,  1912. 


CONTENTS 

Brief    ix 

Bibliography 

Bibliographies     xi 

General  References 

a.  Historical  and  Descriptive    xi 

b.  Laws  and  Court  'Decisions  xix 

Affirmative    References     xxi 

Negative    References     xxiii 

Introduction i 

General  Discussion 

Funk  and  Wagnalls  Standard  Encyclopedia.     Trade  Unions      5 

Gladden,  Washington.    Labor  Question  12 

American  Federation  of  Labor.     Declarations   17 

Mussey,  Henry  Raymond.     Trade-Unions  and  Public  Policy 

Atlantic     18 

Robins,    Raymond.      Political    and    Legal     Policies    of    the 

American  Federation  of  Labor  City  Club  Bulletin     26 

Industrial   Unionism    Independent    49 

International  Trade  Union  Statistics   

New    York    Labor    Bulletin     52 

Gompers,  Samuel.    Labor's  Struggle  for  the  Right  to  Organ- 
ize     Outlook    54 

Laughlin,  J.  Laurence.     Hope  for  Labor  Unions    

Scribner's    IMagazine    60 

Laws  and  Court  Decisions 

Contempt  of  Samuel  Gompers  Current  Literature     '/'^ 

Boyle,  James.    Organized  Labor  and  Court  Decisions.  .Forum    80 
Incorporation  of  Trade  Unions    Independent    97 


viii  CONTENTS 

Wheeler,  Everett  P.  What  Organized  Labor  Ought  to  Have 
.' Independent  lOO 

Affirmative  Discussiox 

Reynolds,  James  Bronson.    Benefits  of  Labor  Unions  107 

Prescott,  William  B.  Services  of  Labor  Unions  in  the  Set- 
tlement of  Industrial  Disputes 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy  no 

Bemis,  Edward  W.     Ethical  Side  of  Trade  Unionism  

Independent  1 16 

Portenar,  A.  J.     Xenio  ^le  Impune  Lacessit.  ..  .Independent  122 

Warne,  Frank  Julian.  Programme  of  the  Labor  Unions  .... 
Metropolitan    Magazine  128 

Brooks.  John  Graham.     Trade  Union  and  Democracy  

Outlook  143 

Gladden,  Washington.    Reason  for  the  Unions  ....  Outlook  145 

Negative  DisclsSion 

Fay,  Charles  Norman.     Value  of   Existing  Trade-Unionism 

Atlantic    Monthly  I57 

Eliot,  Charles  W.  Labour  Unions  ....  Cassier's  Magazine  176 
Clarkin,  Franklin.    Daily  Walk  of  the  Walking  Delegate 

Century  188 

Stickley,  Gustav.    Guild  Stamp  and  the  Union  Label  

Craftsman  201 

Wherein  They  Fail   Independent  20Q 

Laughlin,  J.  Laurence.     Unions  Versus  Higher  Wages   .... 

Journal  of  Political  Economy  212 

Baker,  Ray  Stannard.     Trust's  New  Tool   McClure's  225 

Grant,  Luke.     Walking  Delegate   Outlook  244 

Gladden,  Washington.    Case  Against  the  Union  . . .  Outlook  254 


BRIEF 

Resolved,  That  trade  unions,  as  they  now  exist,  are,  on 
the  whole,  beneficial  to  society  in  the  United  States. 

Introduction 

I.     The    welfare    of    the    laboring   classes     is     inseparable 
from  that  of  the  nation,  because: — 

a.  They  include  a  vast  majority  of  the  people. 

b.  They    are    necessary    to    the    industrial   and    social 

activities  of  the  nation. 
II.     Labor's  struggle  for  recognition  and  better  conditions. 

a.  The  serf. 

b.  The  guilds. 

c.  The  factory  system. 

d.  The  trade  union. 

III.     Relation  of  laboring  classes  to  capital, 

a.  Organized  labor. 

b.  Organized  capital. 

Affirmative 

The    affirmative    believes   that   trade    unions   are,    on    the 
whole,  beneficial,  because: — 

I.     Modern  conditions  make  organization  necessary,  for 

a.  The  old  relation  of  master  and  servant  has  disap- 

peared, making  collective  bargaining  imperative. 

b.  Capital  is  aggressively  organized. 

II.     Trade  unions  have  secured  for  all  laborers: — 

a.  Recognition  of  the  laborer's  right  to  a  living  wage. 

b.  Higher  wages. 

c.  Shorter  hours  of  labor. 

d.  Better  and  safer  places  in  which  to  work. 

c.  Recognition  of  right  to  compensation  for  loss  of 
earning  capacity  due  to  the  nature  or  accident  of 
employment. 

f.     Increased  stability  of  employment. 


X  BRIEF 

III.     Trade  unions   are  a  personal   benefit  to  individual  la- 
borers, for 

a.  Greater    efficiency    is    attained    through    union    re- 

quirements of  personal  efficiency. 

b.  Association   with   fellow  workmen   encourages   the 

development  of  the  social  conscience. 

c.  Provision  for  the  emergencies  of  sickness,  accident 

and  death  is  made. 

Negative 

The  negative   believes   that   trade  unions   have   not  been 
beneficial  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  because: — 
I.     They  seek  to  limit  the  freedom  of  contract  through 

a.  Coercion  of  employers. 

b.  Intimidation  of  non-union  workmen. 

c.  Interference  with  public  comfort  or  necessity. 
II.     They  discourage  efficiency,  for 

a.  Many  of  them  have  no  efficiency  test  for  member- 

ship. 

b.  They  maintain  few  trade  schools. 

c.  They  limit  the  number  of  apprentices,  thus  making 

room,    artificially   in    a    given    trade    for    inferior 

workmen. 
d^     They  exact  equal  pay  for  good  and  poor  workers. 
e.    They  limit  the  amount  of  work  a  laborer  may  do  in 

a    given    time,   gaged    by    the   attainment   of    the 

slower  laborers. 
III.    They  are  injurious  to  the  public  welfare,  for 

a.  They   encourage   lawlessness,   as    instanced   by   the 

violent  behavior  of  strikers  and  labor  leaders. 

b.  They  arouse  the  enmity  of  labor  for  capital. 

c.  They  openly  advocate  methods  that  are  illegal,  as 

instanced  by  the  secondary  boycott. 

d.  They  discriminate  against  and  frequently  mistreat 

non-union  laborers,  of  whom  there  are  many 
more  in  the  country  than  there  are  of  union  la- 
borers. 

e.  They    paralyze    industry    and    cause    great    losses, 

through  strikes  and  boycotts. 

f.  They   restrict   the   output,   thus   tending   unduly   to 

keep  up  the  cost  of  commodities. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

A  star  (♦)  preceding:  a  reference  indicates  that  the  entire  article 
or  a  part  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in  this  volume. 

A  dagger  (t)  preceding  a  reference  indicates  that  the  entire 
article  or  a  part  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in  the  Debaters'  Hand- 
book on  the  Open  versus  the  Closed  Shop. 

Bibliographies 

Harvard  University.  Guide  to  Readings  in  Social  Ethics  and 

Allied  Subjects.  1910. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 
Science.  22:  1-112.  Ja.-F.  '04.  Trial  Bibliography  of  Ameri- 
can Trade  Union  Publications.  George  E.  Barnett,  ed. 
Marot,  Helen.  Handbook  of  Labor  literature.  1899.  Free  Li- 
brary of  Economics  and  Political  Science.  Philadelphia. 
True,  E.  L  Labor  Problem:  a  Bibliography,  Wisconsin  Free 

Library  Commission. 
United    States.    Library    of    Congress — ^Division    of    Bibliog- 
raphy. Select  list  of  Books,  with  References  to  Periodi- 
cals, on  Labor,  Particularly  Relating  to  Strikes.  1903. 
For  sale  by   the   Superintendent   of  Public  Documents,    Wash- 
ington, D.  C.     Ten  cents. 

United  States.  Library  of  Congress — Division  of  Bibliog- 
raphy. Select  List  of  References  on  Boycotts  and  Injunc- 
tions in  Labor  Disputes.  191 1. 

For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Documents,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.     Ten  cents. 

General  References 

a.     Historical  and  Descriptive. 

Books,  Pamphlets  and   Documents 

Adams,  Thomas  Sewall,  and  Sumner,  Helen  L.  Labor  prob- 
lems. Chapter  VL  Strikes  and  Boycotts.  Macmillan.  1905. 

Addams,  Jane.  Newer  Ideals  of  Peace.  Chapter  V.  Group 
Morality  in  the  Labor  Movement.  Macmillan.  1907. 

Alden,  Percy.  Democratic  England.  Macmillan.  1912. 
Published  originally  in  the  Chautauquan. 


xii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

•American  Federation  of  Labor..  Declarations  upon  Which 
it  Appeals  to  Working  People. 

Ashley,  W.  J.  Adjustment  of  Wages:  a  Study  in  the  Coal  and 
Iron  Industries  of  Great  Britain  and  America.  Longmans. 
1903. 

Bliss,  W.  D.  P.  ed.  New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform,  un- 
der the  heading  Trade  Unions. 

Bolen,  George  L.  Getting  a  Living.  Macmillan.   1903. 

Bullock,  Charles  Jesse,  comp.  Selected  Readings  in  Eco- 
nomics. Chapter  XIX.  Some  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Prob- 
lem. Ginn.  1907. 

Burke,  William  Maxwell.  History  and  Functions  of  Central 
Labor  Unions.  Columbia  University  Studies  in  History, 
Economics  and  Public  Law.  12:  1-125.  1899. 

Carlton,  Frank  Tracy.  History  and  Problems  of  Organized 
Labor.  Heath.  191 1, 
Bibliography  at  the  end  of  each  chapter. 

Commons,  John  R.,  ed.  Trade  Unionism  and  Labor  Prob- 
lems. Ginn.  1905. 

Commons,  John  R.  and  Others.,  eds.  Documentary  History 
of  American  Industrial  Society.  10  Vols.  Clark.  1909. 

Cook,  Joseph.  Labor.  Boston  Monday  Lectures.  Chapter  X. 
Are  Trades  Unions  a  Nursery  of  Socialism?  Houghton. 
1880. 

Crosby,  Oscar  T.  Strikes:  When  to  Strike  and  How  to 
Strike.  Putnams.  1910. 

Dole,  Charles  Fletcher.  Spirit  of  Democracy.  Chapter 
XXVII.  The  Labor  Unions.  Crowell.  1906. 

Eliot,  Charles  William.  Future  of  Trades-Unionism.  Put- 
nam's. 1910. 

Ely,  Richard  T.  Labor  Movement  in  America,  pp.  34-166. 
Labor  Organizations.  Crowell.  1886. 

*Funk  and  Wagnalls  Standard  Encyclopedia.  Trade  Unions. 

Gilman,  Nicholas  Paine.  Methods  of  Industrial  Peace.  Chap- 
ter VII.  Aims  and  Methods  of  Trade-Unionism.  Hough- 
ton. 1904. 

Gladden,  Washington.  Applied  Christianity,  pp.  38-52.  Is 
Labor  a  Commodity?  Houghton.  1898. 

*Gladden,  Washington.  Labor  Question.  Pilgrim  Press.  191 1. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xiii 

Gladden,  Washington.  Social  Facts  and  Forces.  Chapter  II. 

The  Labor  Union.  Putnam's.  1897. 
Gompers,   Samuel.   Labor   in   Europe   and  America.   Harper. 

1910. 
Hapgood,  Norman.  Industry  and  Progress.   Chapter  II.  La- 
bor. Yale  University  Press.  1911. 
Harrison,  Frederic.  National  and  Social   Problems,  pp.  297- 

Z22.  Trades-Unionism.  Macmillan.  1908. 

Contains  a  bibliography. 
Hollander,  J.   H.,  and   Barnett,   G.    E.   Studies   in   American 

Trade-Unionism.  Holt.  1905. 
Johns   Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Politi- 
cal Science.  24:   105-248.  Mr.-Ap.  '06.  Finances  of  Ameri- 
can Trade  Unions.  A.  M.  Sakolski. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 

Science.  24:  609-750.  S.-O.  '06.  National  Labor  Federations 

in  the  United  States.  William  Kirk. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 

Science.  25:  491-604.  N.-D.  '07.  Apprenticeship  in  American 

Trade  Unions.  James  M.  Motley. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 

Science.   26:    507-618.   N.-D.    '08.    Beneficiary   Features    of 

American  Trade  Unions.  James  B.  Kennedy. 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 

Science.  28:  237-334.   '10.  Trade  Union  Label.   Ernest  R. 

Spedden. 
McCabe,  David  A.  Standard  Rate  in  American  Trade  Unions. 

Johns  Hopkins  Press.  1912. 
Mitchell,  John.  Organized  Labor.  American  Book  and  Bible 

House.  1903. 
National    Education   Association.    Proceedings,    1910:   265-75. 

Trade  Unions  and  Industrial  Education.  W.  B.  Prescott. 
Nearing,  Scott.  Social  Adjustment,  pp.  246-51.  Labor  Unions. 

Macmillan.  191 1. 
New  International  Yearbook.  See  annual  volumes  under  the 

heading  Trade  Unions. 
♦New  York.  Labor,   Department  of.   Bulletin.  42:  392-10.  S. 

'09.  International  Trade  Union  Statistics. 
Pearson,   Paul   M.  ed.  Intercollegiate   Debates,   being  Briefs 

and  Reports  of  Many  Intercollegiate  Debates.  Chapter  XI. 

Are  Labor  Unions  Beneficial?  Hinds  and  Noble.  1909. 


xiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Peters,  Rev.  John  P.  ed.  Labor  and  Capital.  Putnam's.  1902. 

Pigou,  A.  C.  Principles  and  Methods  of  Industrial  Peace. 
Macmillan.  1905. 

Powderly,  T.  V.  Thirty  Yez^rs  of  Labor.  Excelsior  Publish- 
ing House,  Columbus,  Ohio.  1891. 

Robbins,  E.  Clyde.  Selected  Articles  on  the  Open  versus  the 
Closed  Shop.  H.  W.  Wilson  Company.  191 1. 
Bibliography.     Preface,  pp.  13-20. 

Sons  of  the  American  Revolution.  California  Society.  Pro- 
ceedings. 1907:  37-86.  Speeches  at  the  Banquet  of  Octo- 
ber 19,  1907,  on  "The  Spirit  of  Seventy-six  in  its  Relation 
to  Modern  Strikes  and  Boycotts." 

Squier,  Lee  Willing.  Old  Age  Dependency  in  the  United 
States,  pp.  55-66.  Benefit  Features  of  Labor  Organiza- 
tions. Macmillan.  1912. 

Streightoflf,  Frank  Hatch.  Standard  of  Living  Among  the 
Industrial  People  of  America.  Houghton.  1911. 

Taussig,  Frank  W.  Principles  of  Economics.  2  Vols.  Chapter 
II,  V.  2.  Trade-Unions.  Macmillan.  1911. 

United  States.  Industrial  Commission.  Report  on  Labor  Or- 
ganizations, Labor  Disputes  and  Arbitrations,  and  on 
Railway  Labor.  Volume  17  of  the  Commission's  Report. 
1901. 

United  States.  Labor,  Bureau  of.  Annual  Report  of  the  Com- 
missioner. Strikes  and  Lockouts,  v.  3,  10,  16.  1888,  1894, 
1901. 

United  States.  Labor,  Bureau  of.  Bulletin.  9:  1-103.  Ja.  '04. 
Labor  Unions  and  British  Industry.  A.  Maurice  Low. 

United  States.  Labor,  Bureau  of.  Bulletin.  10:  1-8.  Ja.  '05.  In- 
fluence of  Trade  Unions  on  Immigrants.  Carroll  D. 
Wright. 

United  States.  Labor,  Bureau  of.  Bulletin.  12:  699-848.  My. 
'06,  Benefit  Features  of  British  Trade  Unions.  Walter  E. 
Weyl. 

Webb,  Sidney,  and  Webb,   Beatrice.  History  of  Trade  Un- 
ionism. Longmans,  1894. 
Bibliography,  pp.  479-543,  vol.  I. 

Webb,  Sidney,  and  Webb,  Beatrice.  Industrial  Democracy. 
1902. 

Wright,  Carroll  D.  Battles  of  Labor.  G.  W.  Jacobs.  1906. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xv 

Magazine  Articles 

American  Economic  Association  Quarterly.  3d.  Series.  10:  i- 
387.  O.  '09.  The  Printers;  a  Study  in  American  Trade 
Unionism.  G.  E.  Barnett. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  24:  316-30.  S.  '04.  Political 
Action  and  Trade-Unionism.  W.  McArthur. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  25:  67-86.  Ja.  '05.  Miners' 
Union:  Its  Business  Management.  Frank  Julian  Warne. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  26:  721-89.  N.  '05.  British 
and  American  Trade  Unionism.  William  English  Wall- 
ing. 

*Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  27:  521-30.  My.  '06.  Serv- 
ices of  Labor  Unions  in  the  Settlement  of  Industrial  Dis- 
putes. William  B.  Prescott. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  27:  638-45.  My.  '06.  Or- 
ganization amongst  Working  Women.  Lillian  D.  Wald. 

Atlantic.  78:  687-97.  N.  '96.  Trade  Unions  in  the  United  King- 
dom. John  M.  Ludlow. 

♦Atlantic.  109:  441-6.  Ap.  '12.  Trade-Unions  and  Public  Policy. 
Henry  Raymond  Mussey. 

Chautauquan.  39:  225-7.  My.  '04.  "Americanization"  by  Labor 
Unions.  John  R.  Commons. 
Reprinted  from  the  World  To-Day.     October,  1903. 

Chautauquan.  62:  247-54.  Ap.  '11.  Labor  Movement  in  Amer- 
ica. John  R.  Commons. 

*City  Club  Bulletin.  2:  279-92.  F.  17,  '09.  Political  and  Legal 
Policies  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Raymond 
Robins. 

Contemporary  Review,  yy.  105-16.  Ja.  '00.  Socialism  in  the 
United  States.  Ambrose  Pare  Winston. 

Contemporary  Review.  82:  516-25.  O.  '02.  Labor  Organiza- 
tions in  the  United  States.  Carroll  D.  Wright. 

Contemporary  Review.  92:  678-89.  N.  '07.  Trade  Unionism  in 
Germany.  E:  Bernstein. 

Engineering  Magazine.  23:  90-6.  Ap.  '02.  Possibilities  of  a 
New  Trades  Unionism.  Percy  Longmuir. 

Engineering  Magazine.  34:  401-13.  D.  '07.  Rising  Industrial 
Problem;  the  New  Apprenticeship.  George  Frederic  Strat- 
ton. 


xvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Forum,  ii:  205-14.  Ap.  '91.  Trade-Unionism  and  Utopia.  W. 
H.  Mallock. 

Forum.  13:  765-70.  Ag.  '92.  Churches  and  Labor  Unions.  John 
P.  Coyle. 

Forum.  24:  579-90.  Ja.  '98.  Incorporation  of  the  Working- 
Class.  Hugh  McGregor. 

P'orum.  30:  737-51.  F.  '01.  American  Trade-Unions  and  Com- 
pulsory Arbitration.  W.  McArthur. 

Gunton.  22:  59-64.  Ja.  '02.  Labor  Unions  and  Labor  Contracts. 
D.  L.  Cease. 

Hampton.  26:  217-30.  F.  '11.  San  Francisco  of  the  Closed 
Shop.  Frederick  Palmer. 

Harper's  Weekly.  48:  204-6.  F.  6.  '04.  Proposed  Solutions  of 
the  Labor  Problem.  John  Keith. 

♦Independent.  54:  1383-4.  Je.  5,  '02.  Industrial  Unionism. 

Independent.  55:  159-60.  Ja.  15,  '03.  Labor  Unions  and  Pro- 
fessional Classes. 

Independent.  55:  1408-9.  Je.  11,  '03.  Trades  Unions  and  the 
"Premium  Plan." 

tindependent.  55:  1640-1.  Jl.  9,  '03.  Trade  Union  Postulates. 

Independent.  58:  935-8.  Ap.  2-],  '05.  Cap  Maker's  Story.  Rose 
Schneiderman. 

Independent.  68:  11 12-5.  My.  26,  '10.  Employer  and  the  Labor 
Union.  Marcus  M.  Marks. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  15:  88-107.  F.  '07.  Labor  in  the 
Packing  Industry.  Carl  William  Thompson. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  15:  470-88.  O.  '07.  Socialistic 
Tendencies  in  American  Trade  Unions.  John  Curtis  Ken- 
nedy. 

McClure.  23:  43-57.  My.  '04.  Reign  of  Lawlessness;  Anarchy 
and  Despotism  in  Colorado.  Ray  Stannard  Baker. 

McClure.  24:  41-52.  N.  '04.  Parker  and  Roosevelt  on  Labor, 
Ray  Stannard  Baker. 

McClure.  24:  126-93.  D.  '04.  Rise  of  the  Tailors.  Ray  Stan- 
nard Baker. 

McClure.  27:  25-35.  My,  '06.  Lesson  in  Labor:  Story.  Richard 
Washburn  Child. 

Nation.  76:  186-7.  Mr-  5.  '03.  Negro  and  the  Trade  Unions. 

Nation.  91:  515-6.  D.  i,  '10.  Negro  and  the  Unions, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xvii 

Nineteenth  Century.  52:  732-45.  N.  '02.  Industrial  Troubles  in 

America.  Benjamin  Taylor. 
Nineteenth  Century.  53:  290-8.  F.  '03.  Working  Man's  View 

of  Trade  Unions.  James  G.  Hutchinson. 
North  American  Review.   165:  431-43.   O.  '97.  Another  View 

of  the  Union  Label.  Starr  Hoyt  Nichols. 
North    American    Review.    174:   30-45.   Ja.    '02.    Consolidated 

Labor.  Carroll  D.  Wright. 
North  American  Review.  181:  603-15.  O.  '05.  Public  and  the 

Coal  Conflict.  Henry  Edward  Rood. 
North  American  Review.  188:  372-82.  S.  '08.  Labor  Unions  in 

the  Presidential  Campaign.  Henry  White. 
Outlook.  72:  670-3.  N.  22,  '02.  Trust  Problem:  the  "Socialistic 

Basis." 
Outlook.    73:    721-3.    Mr.    28,    '03.    Question    of   a    Maximum 

Wage:  Symposium. 
Outlook.  75:   397-405.   O.   17,  '03.   Trials   of  a  Labor   Editor. 

Joseph  R.  Buchanan. 
Outlook.  75:  894-900.   D.   12,  '03.   Labor   Politics.  Joseph   R. 

Buchanan. 
Outlook.  80:  183-6.  My.  20,  '05.  Why  American  Labor  Unions 

Keep  Out  of  Politics.  William  English  Walling. 
Outlook.   84:   470-6.    O.    27,   '06.    Restrictions    by  Trade   Un- 
ions. John  R.  Commons. 
Outlook.  84:  878-83.   D.  8,  '06.   Newboy's  Labor  Union  and 

What    It    Thinks    of    a    College    Education.    Robert    W. 

Bruere. 
Outlook.   84:   926-31.    D.    15,   '06.   Wometi   in   Trade   Unions. 

Florence  Kelley. 
Outlook.  84:  1073-6.  D.  29,  '06.  Labor  Press.  Charles  Stelzle. 
Outlook.  85:  25-9.  Ja.  5,  '07.  Trade  Unions  and  Politics.  John 

Graham  Brooks. 
♦Outlook.  97:  267-70.  E.  4,  '11.  Labor's  Struggle  for  the  Right 

to  Organize.  Samuel  Gompers. 
Outlook.  97:  543-7.  Mr.  II,  '11.  Which  Is  To  Be  Master?  J.  O. 

Fagan. 
Overland  Monthly.  38:  119-24.  Ag.  '01.  Labor  Organizations. 

Charles  A.  Murdock. 
Political   Science    Quarterly.    16:    1 14-41,   222-47.   Mr.-Je.   '01. 

Chicago  Building  Trades  Dispute.  Ernest  L.  Bogart. 


xviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Political  Science  Quarterly.   19:   193-223.  Je.  '04.  Trusts  and 

Trade  Unions.  Mabel  Atkinson, 
Political  Science   Quarterly.  22:   385-400.   S.  '07.  Attitude  of 

the  State  Toward  Trade  Unions  and  Trusts.  Henry  Rog- 
ers Seager. 
Political  Science  Quarterly.  24:  57-79.  Mr.  '09.  Unionism  in 

the  Iron  and  Steel  Industry.  John  A.  Fitch. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  15:  248-70.  My.  '01.  Chicago 

Building  Trades  Conflict  of  1900. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  20:  59-85.  N.  '05.  Types  of 

American    Labor    Unions:    The    'Longshoremen    of    the 

Great  Lakes.  John  R.  Commons. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  20:  419-42.  My.  '06.  Types 

of  American  Labor  Unions:  The  Musicians  of  St.  Louis 

and  New  York.  John  R.  Commons. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  24:  39-84.  N.  '09.  American 

Shoemakers,  1648-1895:  A  Sketch  of  Industrial  Evolution. 

John  R.  Commons. 
Review  of  Reviews.  35 :  84-7.  Ja.  '07.  Year's  Activity  of  Labor 

Unionism.  Victor  S.  Yarros.  > 

Scribners'    Magazine.   24:    495-508.    O.   '03.   Some    Phases   of 

Trade  Unionism.  Walter  A.  Wyckoflf. 
♦Scribners'    Magazine.   38:   627-33.    N.   '05.    Hope   for    Labor 

Unions.  J.  Laurence  Laughlin. 
Spectator.  105:  376-7.  S.  10,  '10.  Collective  Bargaining. 
Survey.  23:  101-7.  O.  16,  '09.  National  Women's  Trade  Union 

League.  Mary  McDowell. 
Survey.    24:    337-8.    My.   28,    '10.    Roxbury     Carpet     Factory 

Strike.  Elizabeth  G.  Evans. 
Survey.  26:  253-5.  My.  6,  '11.  Strike  at  Muscatine,  Iowa.  Ger- 
trude Barnum. 
Survey.  27:  976-88.  O.  7,  '11.  England's  Revolutionary  Strike: 

the  Transportation  Workers.  Graham  Taylor. 
Westminster  Review.  165:  401-14.  Ap.  '06.  History,  Use  and 

Abuse  of  Trade  Unions.  D.  Wright  Biddulph. 
World  To-Day.  12:  21 1-4.  F.  '07.  Labor  Press.  William  Res- 

telle. 
World  To-Day.  17:  1085-7.  O.  '06.  Trade  Unions  in  Politics. 

Thomas  Sewall  Adams. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xix 

World's  Work.  5:  202:^-7.  Ja.  '03.  What  the  British  Unionists 

Saw:  Mr.  Moseley's  British  Commission  on  Their  Tour. 

M.  G.  Cunniff. 
World's  Work.  6:  3790-4.  Ag.  '03.  Building  Trades  Employers 

and  the  Unions.  William  English  Walling. 
W^orld's  Work.  7:  4092-8.  N.  '03.  Labor  Union  Conquest  of 

the  United  States.  William  Z.  Ripley. 
World's   Work.   8:   4755-8.    My,    '04.    Can   Labor   Unions   be 

Destroyed?  William  English  Walling. 
World's  Work.  15:  10157-8.  Ap.  '08.  Plan  for  Grading  Union 

Labor.  Frank  Jermin  and  Fenton  H.  Duflf. 
World's   Work.   22:    1485 1-5,    14966-72;   23:    107-14.    S.-N.   '11. 

Labor  Leader's  Own  Story.  Henry  White. 

b.     Laws  and  Court  Decisions 
Books,  Pamphlets  and  Documents    ' 

Eaves,  Lucile.  History  of  California  Labor  Legislation.  Uni- 
versity of  California,  1910. 

Groat,  George  Gorham.  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in  La- 
bor Cases.  Columbia  University  Studies  in  History,  Eco- 
nomics and  Public  Law.  Vol.  42.  Chapters  8-1 1.  Unionism. 
1911. 

Huebner,  Grover  Gerhard,  comp.  Blacklisting.  1906.  Wiscon- 
sin Free  Library  Commission.  Comparative  Legislation 
Bulletin,  No.  10. 

Huebner,  Grover  Gerhard,  comp.  Boycotting.  1906.  Wiscon- 
sin Free  Library  Commission.  Comparative  Legislation 
Bulletin.  No.  9. 

Jevons,  Walter  Stanley.  State  in  Relation  to  Labour.  Ed.  3. 
Chapter  4.  Trades  Union  Legislation,  Macmillan,  1894. 

Stimson,  F.  J.  Handbook  to  Labor  Law  of  the  United  States. 
Scribner.  1896. 

Clark,  Lindley  D.  Law  of  the  Employment  of  Labor.  Macmil- 
lan. 191 1. 

Magasine  Articles 

American  Industries.  12:  7-11.  Jl.  '12.  Gompers  Contempt 
Case  Reaffirmed. 


XX  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  32:  75-81,  Jl.  '08.  Attitude 
of  Labor  Towards  Governmental  Regulation  of  Industry. 
Samuel  Gompers. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  36:  87-103.  Jl.  '10.  Use  and 
Abuse  of  Injunctions  in  Trade  Disputes.  Jackson  H.  Ral- 
ston. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  36:  103-18.  Jl.  '10.  Use  and 
Abuse  of  Injunctions  in  Trade  Disputes.  Charles  E.  Lit- 
tlefield. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  36:  127-36.  Jl.  '10.  Use 
and  Abuse  of  Injunctions  in  Tra'de  Disputes.  James  A. 
Emery. 

Century.  76:  91 1-6.  O.  '08.  Writ  of  Injunction  as  a  Party 
Issue.  Seth  Low. 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  15:  588-90.  F.  '06.  Labor  Vote  in 
Philadelphia's  Political  Upheaval.  Henry  Johns  Gibbons. 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  21 :  1046-8.  Mr.  6,  '09.  Labor 
Unions  and  the  Boycott.  John  Martin. 

*Current  Literature.  46:  127-32.  F,  '09.  Contempt  of  Samuel 
Gompers. 

*Forum.  42:  535-51.  D.  '09.  Organized'  Labor  and  Court  De- 
cisions. James  Boyle. 

*Independent.  54:  3038-9.  D.  18,  '02.  Incorporation  of  Trade 
Unions. 

♦Independent.  66:  11-3.  Ja.  7,  '09.  What  Organized  Labor 
Ought  to  Have:  a  Reply  to  Mr.  Gompers.  Everett  P. 
Wheeler. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  18:  129-38.  F.  '10.  Labor  Un- 
ions and  the  Anti-Trust  Law:  a  Review  of  Decisions.  C. 
J,  Primm. 

McClure.  31:  665-80.  O.  '08.  Battle  Against  the  Sherman  Law: 
How  Capital  and  Labor  Combine  to  Safeguard  the  Trust 
and  Legalize  the  Boycott.  Burton  J.  Hendrick. 

McClure.  32:  25-32.  N.  '08.  What  Organized  Labor  Wants:  An 
Interview  with  Samuel  Gompers.  George  Kibbe  Turner. 

McClure.  33:  201-9.  Je.  '09.  Judicial  Decisions  as  An  Issue  in 
Politics.  William  Howard  Taft. 

Nation.  78:  407-8.  Je.  23,  '04.  Trade-Unions  and  the  Law. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxi 

Nation.  80:  346-70.  My.  4,  '05.  Check  to  Union  Tyranny:  the 
Decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Case  of  Lochner 
versus  New  York. 

Nation.  86:  365-6.  Ap.  25,  '08.  Legislative  Demands  of  Or- 
ganized Labor. 

Nineteenth  Century.  51:  233-52.  F.  '02.  Should  Trade  Unions 
Be  Incorporated?  Clement  Edwards. 

Outlook.  69:  1 13-4.  S.  14,  '01.  Incorporation  of  Trades-Unions. 
Carroll  D.  Wright.  Joseph  R.  Buchanan. 

Outlook.  74:  307-9.  Je.  6,  '03.  Should  Unions  Incorporate? 

Outlook.  81:  540-1.  N.  '05.  Illegal  Picketing. 

Outlook.  88:  631-5.  Mr.  21,  '08.  Trusts  and  Trade  Unions. 
Philip  S.  Post,  jr. 

Outlook.  97:  847-9.  Ap.  22,  '11.  Case  of  the  Danbury  Hatters. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  22:  611-22.  D.  '07.  Legal  Status  of 
Trade  Unions  in  the  United  Kingdom.  H.  R.  Seager. 

Review  of  Reviws.  27:  200-1.  F.  '03.  Labor  Unions  and  the 
Law;  the  Recent  Taff  Vale  Decision  in  England.  A.  Mau- 
rice Low. 

Survey.  27:  1432-4.  D.  30,  '11.  Organized  Labor  and  the  Law. 
Samuel  McCune  Lindsay. 

Washington  Law  Reporter.  36:  822-48.  O.  25,  '08.  Supreme 
Court  Decision  in  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Case. 

Yale  Review.  19:  144-58.  Ag.  '10.  Unionism  and  the  Courts. 
George  Gorham  Groat. 

Affirmative  References 
Books,  Pamphlets  and  Documents 

fAmerican   Economic  Association.   Publications.  Series  3,  4: 

172-80.  '03.  Union  and  the  Open  Shop.  Henry  White. 
fAmerican  Economic  Association.   Publications.  Series  3,  4: 

189-206.   '03.   Problems  of   Organized    Labor.    Discussion: 

Samuel  P.  Donnelly,  John   E.  George,  John  A.  Hobson, 

Frank  O'Connor,  E.  Dana  Durand. 
fAmerican   Economic  Association.   Publications.  Series  3,  4: 

211-47.  '03.  Trade  Union  Ideals.  G:  E.  McNeill,  Frank  K. 

Foster. 
American   Federation   of   Labor,  801-809.   G.   Street,   N.   W. 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Price  list  of  publications  sent  on  request. 


xxii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American  Federation  of  Labor.  Executive  Council.  Text  Book 
of  Labor's  Political  Demands.  1906. 

Fox,  Jay.  Trade  Unionism  and  Anarchism.  Mother  Earth 
Publishing  Association.  New  York. 

♦Reynolds,  James  Bronson.  Benefits  of  Labor  Unions,  (in 
Peters,  J.  P.  ed.  Labor  and  Capital,  pp.  55-61). 

Trant,  William.  Trade  Unions,  their  Origin  and  Objects,  In- 
fluence and  Efficacy,  ed.  14.  American  Federation  of  La- 
bor. 1907. 

Magazine  Articles 

American  Economic  Review.  1:  463-72.  S.  'ii.  Organized  La- 
bor's Attitude  Towards  Industrial  Efficiency.  John  R. 
Commons. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  104:  289-302.  S.  '09.  Brotherhoods  and  Ef- 
ficiency. William  J.  Cunningham. 

Congressional  Record.  42:  3866-70.  Mr.  23,  '08.  Interview  Be- 
tween Hon.  J.  G.  Cannon,  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, and  a  Committee  of  Seven,  Representing  Na- 
tional and  International  Trade  and  Labor  Unions  and  Or- 
ganizations of  Farmers. 

Contemporary  Review.  81:  113-28.  Ja.  '02.  Do  Trade  Unions 
Limit  Output?  Clement  Edwards. 

Engineering  Magazine.  20:  560-6.  Ja.  '01.  Uses  and  Abuses  of 
Organization  Among  Employers  and  Employees,  George 
Nicol  Barnes. 

Engineering  Magazine.  25:  641-6.  Ag.  '03.  Future  and  Trades- 
Union  Hostility.  John  B.  C.  Kershaw. 

Gunton's  Magazine.  21:  538-51.  D.  '01.  Employers  and  Labor 
Unions. 

♦Independent.  52:  1055-8.  My.  3,  '00.  Ethical  Side  of  Trade 
Unionism.  Edward  W.  Bemis. 

Independent.  54:  2228-30.  S.  18,  '02.  Dictation  by  the  Unions. 
John  Mitchell. 

flndependent.  56:  1069-72.  My.  12,  '04.  Open  Shop  Means 
Destruction  of  the  Unions.  William  English  Walling. 

tinternational  Review.  11:  28.S-300.  Jl.  '05.  New  Peril  for  the 
Trade  .Union.  John  Graham  Brooks. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  15:  345-64.  Je.  '07.  Trade- 
Union  Point  of  View.  R.  F.  Hoxie. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxiii 

♦Metropolitan.  31:  346-56,  D.  '09.  Programme  of  the  Labor 
Unions.  Frank  Julian  Warne. 

Outlook.  73:  706-8.  Mr.  23,  '03.  Trade-Unionism  and  the  In- 
dividual. 

Outlook.  73:  715-20.  Mr.  28,  '03.  Efficiency  of  Union  Labor.  A. 
J.  Boulton. 

Outlook.  77:  1 1-4.  My.  7,  '04.  Danger  of  Trades-Unions. 

Outlook.  77:  41 1-4.  Je.  18,  '04.  Church  and  the  Trade-Union  in 
Agreement.  George  Hodges. 

*Outlook,  84:  669-74.   17.  '06.  Trade  Union  and  Democracy. 
John  Graham  Brooks. 

Outlook.  88:  821-3.  Ag.  11,  '08.  Letters  from  a  Workingman: 
Spies  in  the  Shop.  By  an  American  Mechanic. 

*Outlook.  97:   497-502.   Mr.   4,   '11.    Reason   for   the   Unions. 
Washington  Gladden. 
Reprinted  in  The  Labor  Question,  Chapter  2. 

Outlook.  97:  827-32.  Ap.   15,  '11.  Cross-Lights  and   Counter- 
claims. Washington  Gladden. 
Reprinted  in  The  Labor  Question,   Chapter  4. 

Outlook.  98:  766-8.  Ag.  5,  '11.  Labor  Unions  and  Class  Con- 
sciousness. Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  17:  369-80.  S.  '02.  Do  Trade  Un- 
ions Limit  Output?  John  Martin. 

Putnam's  Monthly.  3:  62-7.  O.  '07.  Organized  Labor.  Cardinal 
Gibbons, 

Survey.  26:  757-9.  Ag.  26,  '11.  Labor  Leader  and  Family  Re- 
habilitation. Oscar  Leonard. 

World's  Work.  5:  2742-7.  N.  '02.  Human  Side  of  the  Labor 
Unions.  M.  G.  Cunniflf. 

Negative  References 

Books,  Pamphlets  and  Documents 

fAmerican   Economic  Association.  Publications.  Series  3,  4: 

183-9.  '03.  Free  Shops  for  Free  Men.  W.  H.  Pfahler. 
fAmerican  Economic  Association.   Publications.  Series  3,  4: 
207-8.  '03.  Problems  of  Organized  Labor.  Discussion:  Del- 
mar  E.  Hawkins,  William  Z.  Ripley. 
American  Industries.  30  Church  Street,  New  York. 

Published  in  the  interests  of  the  National  Association  of  Man- 
ufacturers. 


xxiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Drew,  Walter.  The  Boycott.  National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers. 

Drew,  Walter.  Real  Problem  of  the  Eight  Hour  Day.  Na- 
tional Association  of  Manufacturers. 

George,  Henry,  jr.  Menace  of  Privilege,  pp.  156-72.  Dangers 
of  Unionism,  Macmillan.  1905. 

Holdom,  Jesse.  Legal  and  Historical  Progress  of  Trade  Un- 
ions. National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 

Holt,  Henry.  On  the  Civic  Relations.  Chapter  XX.  Trade- 
Union  Coercion,  Chapter  XXI,  Labor  and  the  Law,  Chap- 
ter XXII,  Remedies  on  Trial.   Houghton.   1907. 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers  of  the  United  States. 
170  Broadway,  New  York. 
Anti-trade-union  literature  will  be  mailed  upon  request. 

Van  Cleave,  James  W.  Americanism,  the  True  Solution  of  the 
Labor  Problem,  National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 

Magazine  Articles 

American  Industries.  12:  12-7.  Jl.  '12.  Union  Grip  on  New 
York  Newspapers. 

tAnnals  of  the  American  Academy.  36:  321-31.  S.  '10.  Trade 
Agreements.  Ethelbert  Stewart. 

tAnnals  of  the  American  Academy.  36:  373-80.  Work  of 
Employers'  Associations  in  the  Settlement  of  Labor  Dis- 
putes. James  W.  Van  Cleave. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  90:  794-801.  D.  '02.  Trade  Union  and  the 
Superior  Workman.  Ambrose  P.  Winston. 

t Atlantic  Monthly.  94:  433-9.  O,  '04.  Closed  Shop,  C.  J.  Bul- 
lock. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  104:  302-15.  S.  '09.  Authority  and  Efficiency 
in  Railroad  Management.  James  O.  Pagan, 

Atlantic  Monthly.  104:  469-76.  O.  '09.  Trade-Unions  and  the 
Industrial  Worker.  Jonathan  Thayer  Lincoln. 

♦Atlantic  Monthly.  109:  758-70.  Je.  '12,  Value  of  Existing 
Trade-Unionism.  Charles  Norman  Fay. 

♦Cassier's  Magazine.  23:  434-40.  Ja.  '03.  Labour  Unions, 
Their  Good  Features  and  Their  Evil  Ones.  Charles  W. 
Eliot.       . 

Century.  65:  317-9.  D.  '02.  Workingman's  Right. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxv 

♦Century.  67:  298-304.  D.  '03.  Daily  Walk  of  the  Walking 
Delegate.  Franklin  Clarkin. 

Century.  67:  657-61.  Mr.  '04.  United  Workman:  a  Satire.  Al- 
bert Bigelow  Paine. 

Century.  83:  151-2.  N.  '11.  Blind  Leaders  of  Labor. 

Century.  84:  149-50.  My.  '12.  Labor-Unions  not  Omnipotent. 

Charities  and  the  Commons.  17:  788-90.  F.  2,  '07.  Case  of 
Labor  Against  Its  Traitors.  Graham  R.  Taylor. 

♦Craftsman.  13:  375-84.  Ja.  '08.  Guild  Stamp  and  the  Union 
Label.  Gustav  Stickley. 

Gunton's  Magazine.  24:  471-84.  Je.  '03.  Misuse  of  Organiza- 
tion. 

Harper's  Weekly.  47:  1902-4,  1940-1,  2062-4,  2094-6.  N.  28-D. 
26,  '03.  Strangle-Hold  of  Labor.  John  Keith, 

Harper's  Weekly.  48:  204-6,  F.  6,  '04.  Proposed  Solution  of 
the  Labor  Problem.  John  Keith. 

Harper's  Weekly.  48:  1422,  1424.  S.  17,  '04.  Labor  as  a  Power 
in  Politics.  John  Keith. 

Harper's  Weekly.  51:  908-10.  Je.  22,  '07.  How  the  West  Dealt 
with  One  Labor  Union;  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World.  Barton  W.  Currie. 

Independent.  53:  1998-9.  Ag.  22,  '01.  Repudiation  of  Contracts 
by  Trade  Unions. 

*Independent.  53:  2128-30.  S.  5,  '01.  Wherein  They  Fail. 

Independent.  ^5:  1493-7.  Je.  25,  '03.  Sympathetic  Strike:  a 
Warning  to  Labor.  John  S.  Stevens. 

♦Independent.  66:  682-5.  Ja.  28,  '09.  Nemo  Me  Impune  Laces- 
sit.  A.  J.  Portenar, 

Independent,  72:  388-90,  F,  22,  '12.  Violence  in  Labor  Dis- 
putes. Harry  Orchard. 

♦Journal  of  Political  Economy.  14:  129-42.  Mr.  '06.  Unions 
Versus  Higher  Wages.  J.  Laurence  Laughlin. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  15:  149-65.  Mr.  '07.  Trade- 
Union  Programme  of  "Enlightened  Selfishness".  John 
Cummings. 

McClure.  21:  451-63.  S.  '03.  Capital  and  Labor  Hunt  Together; 
Chicago  the  Victim  of  the  New  Industrial  Conspiracy'. 
Ray  Stannard  Baker. 

♦McClure.  22:  30-42.  N.  '03.  Trust's  New  Tool:  the  Labor 
Boss.  Ray  Stannard  Baker. 


xxvi.  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

McClure.  22:  366-78.  F.  '04.  Corner  in  Labor:  What  is  Hap- 
pening in  San  Francisco.  Ray  Stannard  Baker. 

McCIure.  23:  279-92.  Jl.  '04.  Organized  Capital  Challenges 
Organized  Labor:  the  New  Employers'  Association  Move- 
ment. Ray  Stannard  Baker. 

Nation.  75:  394.  N.  20,  '02.  Enemies  of  Society. 

Nation.  76:  453-4-  Je.  4,  '03.  Unionism  and  Mob  Rule.  M.  C. 

Nation.  78:  265-6.  F.  '04.  Remedies  Against  Unions. 

Nation.  83:  70-1."  Jl.  26,  '06.  Trade  Union  Violence. 

Nation.  84:  402.  My.  2,  '07.  Truly  Undesirable  Citizens. 

Nation.  92:  334.  Ap.  6,  '11.  Labor  Unions  and  Efficiency. 

North  American  Review.  149:  413-20.  O.  '89.  Tyranny  of 
Labor  Organizations.  Austin  Corbin. 

North  American  Review.  179:  178-93.  Ag.  '04.  Present  Crisis 
in  Trades-Union  Morals.  Jane  Addams. 

North  American  Review.  176:  409-21.  Mr.  '03.  Rights  and 
Methods  of  Labor  Organizations.  Albert  S.  Bolles. 

North  American  Review.  178:  571-81.  Ap.  '04.  Industrial  Lib- 
erty, not  Industrial  Anarchy.  Henry  Loomis  Nelson. 

North  American  Review.  189:  771-5.  My.  '09.  Crisis  in  Union- 
ism. Henry  White. 

Outlook.  74:  275-7.  My.  30,  '03.  Do  Unions  Restrict  Earnings? 
Symposium. 

Outlook.  74:  410-5.  Je.  13,  '03.  Efficiency  of  Unions  from  an 
Employer's  Standpoint. 

Outlook.  83:  108-9.  My.  19,  '06.  Lawlessness  and  Labor  Un- 
ions: the  Western  Federation  of  Miners. 

Outlook.  83:  675.  Jl.  28,  '06.  Labor  Unions  and  Crime. 

♦Outlook.  84:  615-21.  N.  10,  '06.  Walking  Delegate.  Luke 
Grant. 

Outlook.  89:  134-5.  My.  23,  '08.  An  Intolerable  Tyranny:  the 
Street  Car  Strike  in  Chester,  Pennsylvania. 

♦Outlook.  97:  465-71.  F.  25,  '11.  Case  Against  the  Labor  Un- 
ion. Washington  Gladden. 
Reprinted  In  The  Labor  Question,  Chapter  I. 

Outlook.  98:  12-3.  My.  6,  '11.  Murder  is  Murder:  the  Los 
Angeles  Times  Explosion.  Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Overland,  New  Series.  42:  403-6.  N.  '03.  Unionized  City.  Guy 
Raymond  Halifax. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxvii 

Overland,  New  Series.  43:  506-9.  Je.  '04.  Dangers  of  Union- 
ism. Guy  Raymond  Halifax. 

Popular  Science  Monthly.  8:  586-95.  Mr.  '76.  Functions  of 
Association  in  Its  Relations  to  Labor.  William  B.  Weeden. 

Popular  Science  Monthly.  33:  361-8.  Jl.  '88.  Fallacies  in  the 
Trades  Union  Argument.  J.  B.  Mann. 

World's  Work.  4:  2661-7.  O.  '02.  Labor  Union  Restriction  of 
Industry.  M.  G.  Cunniff. 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 
TRADE   UNIONS 


INTRODUCTION 

It  is  difficult  for  the  average  American  to  bring  a  dis- 
passionate and  unprejudiced  judgment  to  bear  on  the  subject 
of  trade  unions.  The  fierce  and  bitter  struggle  between  la- 
bor and  capital  has  made  partisans  of  a  majority  of  those 
who  have  even  a  superficial  knowledge  of  the  subject. 

Working  people,  on  the  one  hand,  begin  to  realize  that 
no  forward  step  will  be  taken  in  their  behalf  unless  they 
demand  it  with  sufficient  unity  and  forcefulness  to  compel  a 
hearing.  Only  through  organization  can  they  hope  to  better 
their  condition — and  only  through  wisely  directed  organiza- 
tion, at  that. 

The  capitalist  class,  on  the  other  hand,  like  the  feudal 
barons,  having  gotten  an  advantage,  regards  this  control 
over  the  eflforts  of  laborers  as  a  vested  right — one  which  is 
not  to  be  relinquished  except  through  compulsion  by  an 
overwhelming  force  directed  against  it.  At  present,  almost 
all  the  advantage  is  with  capital,  which  has  laws,  courts, 
officials  and  legislatures  at  its  service.  The  one  chief  advan- 
tage of  labor — that  of  the  natural,  human  tendency  to  syrn- 
pathize  with  the  under  dog — is  frequently  nullified  by  the 
violent  actions  of  organized  labor. 

History  bears  eloquent  testimony  to  the  need  of  the  la- 
boring classes  for  organization.  Scarcely  an  inch  of  their 
upward  way  but  has  been  won  by  violence,  and  collective  ac- 
tion. Mere  clamor  has  done  little  for  them:  the  burning  of 
hay  ricks,  the  pike  and  liberty  cap,  bread  riots,  the  strike, 
the  boycott,  the  concerted  action  of  workmen  through  trade 
unions  have  been  the  instruments  of  progress.     No  matter 


2  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

what  degree  of  vulnerability  one  may  see  in  the  trade  unions 
as  they  now  exist,  no  student  of  the  subject  can  gainsay 
their  claim  to  having  forced  from  capital  most  of  the  cur- 
rently recognized  rights  of  labor. 

In  a  popular  government,  such  as  is  supposed  to  exist  in 
the  United  States,  labor  has,  if  it  would  but  use  it,  a  remedy 
in  the  ballot  for  many  of  the  unfair  advantages  taken  of  it 
by  capital.  The  leading  universal  labor  organization,  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  has  been  averse  to  definite 
political  action.  It  is  also  averse  to  strikes,  and  officially, 
to  deeds  of  violence. 

The  plain  private  citizen  is  frequently  puzzled  by  antip- 
odal facts.  He  recalls  the  confession  of  Harry  Orchard  in 
the  Moyer-Haywood  aflfair,  and  the  admitted  guilt  of  the 
McNamaras  at  Los  Angeles;  he  reads  about  the  strike  in  the 
Lawrence  textile  mills,  and  learns  of  the  shocking  condition 
of  laboring  people  there,  and  it  is  small  wonder  that  his 
sympathies  are  divided,  and  his  judgment  as  to  what  is  his 
attitude  toward  labor  and  capital  undefined. 

The  student,  who  carefully  traces  the  history  of  the  on- 
ward sweep  of  democracy,  and  who  surveys  conditions  in  the 
United  States,  will  probably  arrive  at  the  following  general 
conclusions: — 

1.  Organization,  both  of  labor  and  of  capital,  is  neces- 
sary and  beneficial,  provided  that  the  object  of  such  organiza- 
tion, in  whole  or  in  part,  is  to  facilitate  legitimate  relations 
between  them,  and  to  promote  the  general  welfare. 

2.  The  general  welfare  requires  that  the  great  mass  of 
our  people  should  have  decency  and  comfort  rather  than 
that  an  insignificant  part  of  them  should  have  insolent  lux- 
ury. 

3.  Government  will  have  to  adjust  the  relations  between 
labor  and  capital  so  as  to  secure: — 

To  labor, 

a.  A  minimum  living  wage,  healthful  conditions  of  labor, 
comfortable  housing,  and  reasonable  leisure. 

b.  Education  that  will  insure  greater  efficiency. 

c.  Adjustment  of  difficulties  with  employers  without  ex- 
pensive recourse  to  biased  courts. 


TRADE  UNIONS  3 

d.  Suitable  provisions  for  the  emergencies  of  accident, 
sickness,  old  age  and  other  forms  of  dependency. 

To  capital. 

a.  A  reasonable  return  on  the  actual  investment  in  any 
well  conducted  and  sagaciously  planned  business. 

b.  Immunity  from  ill-advised  activity  of  organized  labor, 
detrimental  to  business,  and. from  violence. 

c.  Speedy  and  inexpensive  settlement  of  difficulties  with 
labor. 

To  the  public. 

Security  from  the  disastrous  effects,  on  the  one  hand,  of 
financial  disturbances  due  to  the  action  of  organized  labor, 
and,  on  the  other,  from  the  oppression  of  working  classes, 
with  its  inevitable  reaction  upon  society. 

4.  The  attainment  of  these  ends  of  social  justice  should 
become  a  part  of  the  religion  of  all  true  Americans. 

Edna  D.  Bullock. 


GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

Funk  and  Wagnalls  Standard  Encyclopedia  of  the  World's 
Knowledge.  24:  283-8. 

Trade   Unions. 

Trade  unions,  in  the  United  States,  where  labor  unions  is 
a  more  commonly  used  name,  are  of  later  growth  and  of 
much  less  importance  than  in  Europe.  This  is  due  to  the 
comparatively  late  industrial  development  of  the  United 
States,  the  continual  influx  of  new  laboring  classes,  and  the 
high  degree  of  prosperity  of  the  American  workingman. 
Among  early  labor  organizations  were  the  famous  Caulkers' 
Club  of  Boston,  organized  for  political  purposes  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  i8th  century,  and  the  union  of  bakers  which 
declared  a  strike  in  New  York  City  (1742).  Composed  of 
members  of  different  trades,  and  all  in  New  York  state  were 
various  workmen's  societies. 

Altho  there  were  various  workmen's  societies  at  the  be- 
ginning of  last  century,  the  year  1825  saw  the  real  beginnings 
of  the  movement  for  the  organization  of  labor  with  Robert 
Owen's  Free  Inquiry,  the  publication  in  New  York  of  the 
Workingman's  Advocate,  quickly  followed  by  the  Daily  Sen- 
tinel and  Young  America.  Between  1827  and  1837,  beginning 
in  Philadelphia,  the  unions  ceased  being  secret  societies,  and 
worked  for  free  schools,  a  ten  hour  day,  and  the  passage  of 
laws  giving  laborers  liens  on  their  work  for  wages,  forbid- 
ding imprisonment  for  debt,  and  repealing  the  conspiracy 
and  combination  statutes  which  barred  labor  organizations 
from  cooperative  effort  and  collective  bargaining.  In  New 
York  state  a  Workingman's  Convention  at  Syracuse  in  1830 
nominated  a  candidate  for  governor,  and  secured  abolition 
of  imprisonment  for  debt.  In  1832  a  convention  of  dele- 
gates in  the  Massachusetts  state-house  declared  for  the  ten 
hour  day.     Twenty-one  trade  societies  united  in  1833  to  form 


6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  General  Trades'  Unions  of  New  York  City,  and  in  the 
next  year  general  unions  were  formed  in   Boston,  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  in   Baltimore,  where  in '1835  the  United   Hand- 
Loom  Weavers'  Trade  Association  was  organized.     In   1840 
the  movement  won  its  first  great  victory;  ten  hours  was  de- 
clared a  legal  day  for   the   employees   in  the   navy-yards  of 
the  United  States  government.     In   1840-42  the  Journeyman 
Bootmakers    of    Boston   were    tried   for    conspiracy   to    force 
workmen    into    their    union;    the    state    Supreme    Court    re- 
versed the  lower  court,  and  Chief-Justice  Lemuel  Shaw  in  a 
famous  opinion  declared  the  intention  of  the  Association  not 
illegal.     The   strength   and  brains   of  the   movement   at   this 
time  is  sufficiently  suggested  by  the  mention  of  such  names 
as   Robert   Owen,   Albert    Brisbane,   George    Riploj-,    Charles 
A.    Dana,   Theodore    Parker,   Wendell    Phillipps    and    W.    L. 
Garrison — all    connected   with    the    New    England    Working- 
man's    Association    (1845),    and   all    more    or    less    intimately 
disciples  of  Fourierism,  which  was  effectively  proclaimed  by 
Brisbane  in  the  popular  and  influential  New  York  Tribune. 
Between    1850  and    i860,   many   of  the   large  unions   of  the 
country   were    formed.     The    National    Typographical   union 
was  organized  in   1852  at  Cincinnati,  and  in   1869  it  changed 
its  style  from  'National'  to  'International' — to  include  print- 
ers   in    Canada.     The    National    Trade    Association    of    Hat- 
Finishers  of  the  United   States  was   formed  in    1854,  and  in 
1868  a  schism  from  it  organized  the  Silk  and  I'ur   Mat  Fin- 
ishers' Trade  Association;  the  Sons  of  Vulcan  organized  in 
1858,  and  in   1876  with  two  other  unions  formed  the  Amal- 
gamated Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers;  and  in  1859 
were  formed  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  .America  and 
the  Machinists'  and  Blacksmiths'  Union   of  North   .America, 
which  in  1877  became  the  Mechanical  Engineers  of  the  United 
States.     At  the  close  of  this  transition  period,  in  i860,  there 
were   in    the   country    more   than    a    score    of   national    trade 
unions. 

The  period  since  i860  is  the  important  one  in  the  history 
of  American  labor  organizations.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in 
1868  the  Federal  government  made  eight  hours  a  working 
day  for  its  employees,  thus  following  up  the  order  of  1840 
for   a   ten-hour   day   in    Federal    navy-yards.     There    was,    in 


TRADE  UNIONS  7 

the  early  part  of  this  period  especially,  an  oft  repeated  at- 
tempt to  join  all  the  trades  in  a  national  organization.  A 
National  Labor  Union,  working  for  an  eight-hour  day,  met 
in  Baltimore  in  1866  at  the  call  of  the  presidents  of  different 
trade  unions.  It  held  a  number  of  Conventions  and  in  the 
Presidential  election  of  1872  supported  Charles  O'Connor, 
who  received  30,000  votes.  The  panic  of  1873  and  the  indus- 
trial depression  immediately  before  and  after  brought  many 
brotherhoods  and  unions  to  financial  straits,  especially  as 
low  dues  and  small  benefits  were  the  rule  up  to  that  time. 
This  period  (1860-75),  marked  by  attempts  to  form  general 
trade  unions,  all  unsuccessful  except  that  of  the  Knights  of 
Labor,  was  a  time  of  successful  organization  of  special  un- 
ions, particularly  of  railroad  men.  Other  national  unions 
dating  from  this  same  period  are  the  Cigar-makers'  National 
(1864),  the  Bricklayers'  and  Masons'  International  (1865), 
and  the  National  Union  of  Horseshoers  (1875). 

The  first  successful  general  organization  in  the  United 
States  was  the  Knights  of  Labor.  Great  concentration  of 
power  and  lack  of  trade  autonomy  is  the  most  marked  char- 
acteristic of  the  Knights  of  Labor. 

In  the  period  after  1875  there  were  again  many  attempts 
to  organize  laboring  men  of  different  trades  in  one  union  or 
order.  In  1874  there  had  been  an  attempt  to  revive  the  Na- 
tional Labor  Union.  Branches  of  an  'international  labor  un- 
ion' in  seventeen  states  worked  for  an  'amalgamated'  union 
of  all  laborers  about  1877;  and  in  1878-80  the  American 
Typographical  Union  tried  to  form  a  Continental  Federation 
of  Trades.  The  trade-  (or  labor-)  union  plan  as  contrasted 
with  the  absence  of  trade  autonomy  in  the  Knights  of  La- 
bor, was  growing  in  importance;  and  in  November,  1881,  107. 
delegates  (representing,  it  was  claimed,  250,000  workmen) 
met  in  Pittsburgh  and  formed  the  Federation  of  Organized 
Trades  and  Labor  Unions  of  the  United  States  and  Canada, 
which  at  a  convention  in  Baltimore  in  December,  1887,  re- 
vised its  constitution  -and  took  the  name  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor.  The  Federation  was  not  originally  hostile 
to  the  Knights  of  Labor,  but  urged  that  the  local  assembly 
of  the  Knights,  through  the  Federation,  should  work  in  har- 
mony  with    the   local    unions,    and    admitted    representatives 


8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

of  both  to  its  congress.  But  the  trade  unions  distrusted 
the  Knights,  because  the  Knights  did  not  promote  or  even 
allow  trade  autonomy.  The  Federation,  on  the  other  hand, 
believed  firmly  in  trade  autonomy,  and  was  a  union  of  the 
workers  of  a  single  craft.  Newly-formed  national  trade 
unions,  therefore,  naturally  allied  themselves  with  the  Ameri- 
can Federation,  and  thus  preserved  independent  jurisdiction 
— and  a  few  of  them  remained  nominally  independent  also. 
The  American  Federation  claims  jurisdiction  over  the  na- 
tional trade  unions  only  when  a  dispute  arises  between  dif- 
ferent unions.  Besides  this  opposition  between  the  Federa- 
tion and  the  Knights,  there  was  a  certain  rivalry  of  propa- 
gandism.  The  Federation,  in  spite  of  its  early  wishes  to 
harmonize  with  the  Knights,  refused  to  recognize  double 
organization  in  any  trade,  because  such  organization  made 
trade  autonomy  impossible;  and  as  the  Knights  of  Labor 
had  no  objection  to  dual  organization  and  continually  formed 
'assemblies'  -in  localities  and  in  trades  where  'unions'  had 
already  been  organized,  there  resulted  new  opposition.  On 
May  17,  1880,  there  was  a  conference  in  Philadelphia  be- 
tween representatives  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  of  the 
national  trade  unions.  The  treaty  proposed  by  the  unions 
and  rejected  by  the  Knights  became  a  common  platform  for 
all  the  opponents  of  the  Knights  of  Labor.  The  main  points 
of  this  treaty  were:  that  the  Knights  of  Labor  should  not 
initiate  any  person  or  form  an  assembly  in  any  branch  of 
labor  which  had  a  national  or  international  organization 
without  the  consent  of  the  organization  affected;  that  the 
Knights  should  not  admit  members  who  worked  for  less 
than  union  wages,  or  'scabbed'  (that  is,  worked  through  a 
strike),  or  embezzled  the  funds  of  a  union;  that,  where  the 
Knights  had  organized  an  assembly  duplicating  an  existing 
union,  the  charter  of  such  an  assembly  should  be  revoked 
and  its  members  should  join  the  union;  that  the  Knights 
should  revoke  the  commission  of  any  organizer  who  at- 
tempted to  disband  a  trade  union;  that  there  should  be  no 
interference  by  the  Knights  with  trade  unions  on  strike; 
and  that  the  Knights  should  not  issue  labels  competing  with 
those  issued  by  trade  unions.  If  this  plan  had  been  adopted 
by  the   Knights  of  Labor,  they  would   (to  quote  Professor 


TRADE  UNIONS  9 

William  Kirk)  'have  become  the  central  reform  bureau  of 
the  labor  movement'. 

The  question  of  dual  organization  came  up  in  1889  and 
in  1891,  but  in  1894  the  Federation  decided  not  to  meet  or 
confer  with  the  Knights  until  they  'declared  against  dual 
organization  in  any  one  trade.' 

The  contest  between  the  Federation  and  the  Knights  and 
the  contrast  between  the  two  is  clearly  shown  by  their 
theory  and  practice  in  regard  to  the  union  label,  to  coopera- 
tion, to  strikes  and  boycotts,  to  the  reduction  of  working 
hours,  and  to  politics  and  legislation.  ' 

In  theory  strikes  were  deprecated  b}'  the  early  assem- 
blies of  the  Knights  of  Labor;  but  in  1882,  after  the  order 
had  ceased  to  be  secret,  rules  were  adopted  for  the  support 
of  strikes.  The  boycott  was  considered  a  less  dangerous 
weapon  than  the  strike  by  the  Knights,  and  it  has  already 
been  pointed  out  that  the  federal  power  of  the  General  As- 
sembly with  its  control  over  an  inter-trade  organization 
made  the  boycott  a  rarely  efficient  tool  for  the  Knights  of 
Labor.  The  Federation  of  Labor  cannot  make  a  boycott 
effective  in  the  same  way,  tho  its  constituent  trade  unions 
(national  or  international)  have  the  power,  but  only  each 
within  its  own  trade  organization.  The  Western  (or  Amer- 
ican) Labor  Union,  like  the  Knights  of  Labor,  used  its  con- 
trol of  diflfcrent  trade  organizations  to  promote  sympathetic 
strikes  which  were  uniformly  unsuccessful,  and  which  great- 
ly lessened  the  prestige  and  influence  of  the  central  organi- 
zation. The  Federation  has  been  fortunate  in  having  no 
power  to  call  a  sympathetic  strike,  and  its  weakness  in  call- 
ing or  controlling  any  strike  has  made  it  less  ready  to 
recommend  coercion,  altho  in  theory  it  has  considered 
strikes  as  necessary  and  valuable  means  of  promoting  the 
welfare  of  organized  labor. 

Both  the  Knights  and  the  Federation  have  worked  for 
the  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor;  and  the  Knights  of 
Labor  have  been  able  and  willing  to  take  part  in  politics, 
and  to  promote  legislation  for  the  betterment  of  labor  con- 
ditions. The  American  Labor  Union  resembled  the  Knights 
of    Labor   in   this   respect   and   outdid   them;    in    1902    it   ex- 


lo  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

pressed  sympathy  with  'international  socialism'  and  adopted 
the  entire  platform  of  the  American  socialist  party. 

The  American  Labor  Union  collected  a  general  defense 
fund  from  its  entire  membership.  The  Knights  of  Labor 
provide  for  voluntary  contributions  to  a  general  fund,  and 
allow  district  or  local  assemblies  to  control  their  own  funds. 

The  benefit  system  is  less  developed  than  in  English 
trade  unions,  and  is  less  general.  It  has  been  most  fully 
evolved  in  America  in  the  Cigar  Makers'  Union  and  in  the 
railroad  unions.  The  influence  of  organized  labor  is  clearly 
to  be  seen  in  the*  growing  frequency  of  radical  state  legisla- 
tion on  the  subject  of  employers'  liability;  and  everything — 
notablj'  the  attitude  of  the  'House  of  Governors'  in  Septem- 
ber, lyii — points  to  new  and  more  radical  legislation  on  this 
subject  in  the  near  future.  Mention  should  be  made  also 
of  the  many  pension  schemes  for  employees  adopted  by 
many  great  corporations,  especially  railroads. 

With  the  organization  of  trade  unions  in  the  United 
States,  associations  of  employers  have  been  formed  and 
since  1895  there  has  been  a  National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers which  may  be  considered  a  rough  parallel  to  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  Stove  Founders'  Na- 
tional Defense  Association  (formed  in  1886  after  thirteen 
years  of  organization  for  purposes  of  trade)  includes  more 
than  one-fifth  of  all  the  American  stove  manufacturers,  em- 
ploying more  than  one-half  the  men  in  that  industry.  It 
fought  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  until  1891,  and  then  agreed 
to  arbitrate  questions  arising  between  it  and  the  union. 
(Jthcr  national  employers'  associations  are  those  of  the 
metal  trades,  of  lake  transportation,  of  machine  construction, 
of  publishing  and  printing  (American  Newspaper  Publishers' 
Association,  1900),  marble  trade  and  structural  builders' 
trades,  and  ready-made  clothing.  A  Citizens'  Industrial  As- 
sociation of  America  has  many  national  and  local  sub-asso- 
ciations. Besides  there  are  various  local  associations  of 
employers. 

The  American  .\nti-Boycott  Association,  a  powerful  op- 
ponent of  one  of  the  methods  of  the  trade  unions,  pushed 
the  famous  case  (Loewe  v.  Lawler)  against  the  Hatters' 
Union    (supported   by   the   American    Federation    of   Labor) 


TRADE  UNIONS  ii 

for  its  boycott  of  Loewe  and  Company,  hat  manufacturers 
of  Danbury,  Conn.  This  case  was  carried  to  the  Federal 
Supreme  Court,  and  the  boycott  was  declared  illegal  under 
the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act.  The  labor  organizations  have 
made  a  strong  effort  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  federal  law 
forbidding  the  use  of  funds  appropriated  in  this  act  in  the 
prosecution  of  trade  unions;  and  of  a  bill  to  limit  the  mean- 
ing of  conspiracy  as  applied  to  the  action  of  unions.  A 
similar  decision  in  regard  to  boycotts  was  rendered  in  the 
Bucks  Stove  and  Range  Company  case;  and,  as  this  decision 
was  not  rendered  until  the  stove  company  had  agreed  to 
operate  a  closed  shop  (i.  e.  employ  only  union  men)  one  of 
the  company's  stockholders,  C.  W.  Post,  an  able  opponent 
of  the  closed  shop,  asked  for  an  injunction  against  this 
agreement.  The  injunction  is  still  the  most  powerful 
weapon  against  the  excesses  of  trade  unionism,  and  is  itself 
liable  to  be  used  in  excess;  in  1910  injunctions  were  issued 
against  picketing  (in  the  metal  workers'  strike  in  Los  Ange- 
les), against  a  sympathetic  strike  (in  the  shirt  waist-makers' 
strike  in  New  York),  and  against  a  strike  for  the  closed 
shop  (in  the  New  York  City  cloak-makers'  strike).  Statute 
law  is  usually  more  favorable  to  labor  organizations  than 
judicial  decisions,  but  it  forbids  picketing  in  Alabama,  and 
boycotting  in  Alabama,  Colorado,  Illinois,  Indiana  and  Texas. 
Laws  forbidding  an  employer  to  require  a  pledge  not  to  join 
a  labor  union  have  been  passed  in  several  state  legislatures 
and  by  the  United  States  Congress  for  railroads  under  the 
inter-state  commerce  commission,  and  have  been  declared 
unconstitutional  by  the  state  courts  of  Illinois,  Kansas,  Mis- 
souri, Pennsylvania  and  Wisconsin.  Illinois,  Montana,  Ore- 
gon, Tennessee,  and  (1910)  Massachusetts  make  it  unlawful 
for  employers  to  advertise  for  help  during  a  strike  without 
stating  that  there  is  a  strike.  Most  of  the  states  protect 
union  trade-marks  or  labels,  and  a  few  require  that  all  pub- 
lic printing  must  bear  the  union  label.  A  Nebraska  statute 
requires  union  labor  on  all  state  work,  and  a  Kentucky  law 
(1910)  penalizes  the  employment  of  men  on  public  works 
more  than  eight  hours  a  day  except  in  emergency. 


12  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Labor  Question,  pp.  96-113. 

Washington  Gladden, 

The  danger  of  the  hour,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  that  our 
captains  of  industry  will  array  against  themselves  the  gath- 
ering might  of  resistless  democracy  and  be  trampled  in  the 
dust.  It  would  be  far  better  for  them,  and  for  the  common 
man,  and  for  all  the  rest  of  us,  if  they  would  keep  the  lead- 
ership of  industry.  Leadership  they  can  have  if  they  have 
wit  to  claim  it  and  sense  enough  to  exercise  it — leadership 
but  not  lordship.  Industrial  democracy  wants  leaders,  but 
not  autocrats;  and  large  rewards  and  precious — not  billions 
of  dollars,  but  blessing  and  honor — are  waiting  for  those 
who  have  the  vision  and  the  courage  for  this  high  service. 

Industrial  democracy  means  giving  the  wage-workers, 
through  collective  bargaining,  a  voice  in  the  determination 
of  their  share  in  the  joint  product.  It  does  not  mean  the 
domination  of  the  business  by  the  men  and  the  subjugation 
of  the  employer,  though  this  is  the  employer's  apprehension, 
and  this  is  the  notion  that  sometimes  gets  into  the  working 
man's  head.  Mr.  Kier  Hardie,  M.  P.,  for  whom  I  have  great 
respect,  spoke  only  the  other  day  of  the  prospect  that  the 
working  class  was  about  to  become  the  ruling  class.  Par- 
don, Mr.  Hardie,  but  in  democracy  there  are  no  ruling 
classes.  We  c^ll  no  man  master,  not  even  the  walking 
delegate.  And  inverted  feudalism,  with  the  common  man 
on  top,  would  be  no  whit  better  than  the  old  fashioned  sort 
with  the  common  man  under  foot.  We  will  have  neither  of 
them.  You  are  not  going  to  tyrannize  over  us,  Mr.  Kier 
Hardie,  with  your  labor  organizations,  and  we  do  not  believe 
that  you  really  want  to  do  any  such  thing.  You  are  going 
to  stand  by  our  side,  with  power  in  the  industrial  realm  to 
assert  and  maintain  your  rights  as  men,  and  with  a  sense  of 
Justice  in  your  breasts  that  will  enable  you  to  fully  recognize 
the  rights  of  your  capitalist  employer;  and  we  arc  going  to 
work  together,  all  classes — men  of  capital,  men  of  organizing 
talent,  men  of  skill,  men  of  brains  and  men  of  brawn — to 
build  a  real  commonwealth. 

So  shall  we  realize  our  democracy.  It  has  never  been 
anything  more  than  the  skeleton  of  a  democracy;  so  long  as 


TRADE  UNIONS  13 

industry  is  feudalistic  it  cannot  be.  But  when  the  common 
man  is  emancipated  and  called  into  partnership  by  the  cap- 
tains of  industry,  we  shall  have  a  real  democracy.  No  super- 
human vision  is  needed  to  discern  the  fact  that  the  confu- 
sions and  corruptions  of  our  political  democracy  are  largely 
due  to  the  disorganizing  influence  of  this  industrial  feudal- 
ism, in  constant  contact  with  it,  and  continually  thrusting 
its  alien  conceptions  and  ideals  into  the  political  arena. 
When  industry  is  fairly  democratized  it  will  be  much  easier 
to  reform  our  politics. 

The  relinquishment  of  autocratic  power  is  not  apt  to  be 
a  welcome  suggestion;  the  cases  are  few  in  which  it  is  sur- 
rendered without  a  deadly  struggle.  But  within  the  last  gen- 
eration we  have  seen  the  feudal  rulers  of  Japan  resigning 
their  power  and  entering  heartily  into  the  life  of  the  com- 
monwealth, with  great  honor  to  themselves  and  great  profit 
to  their  nation.  It  is  not  incredible  that  many  of  our  own 
captains  of  industry  will  discern  the  wisdom  of  a  similar 
sacrifice.  Indeed,  there  are  those  among  them  to  whom  this 
solution  of  the  labor  problem  seems  altogether  feasible. 

The  late  William  Henry  Baldwin,  Jr.,  whose  biography 
has  been  so  admirably  written  by  Mr.  John  Graham  Brooks, 
was  a  type  of  the  class  of  employers  to  whom  the  democrati- 
zation of  industry  is  the  way  of  life  and  peace.  As  a  rail- 
way superintendent  and  president  he  had  large  experience  in 
dealing  with  men,  and  all  the  positions  taken  in  this  chapter 
were' held  by  him  with  the  utmost  firmness.  Speaking  of 
the  extension  of  collective  bargaining,  he  says:  "The  advan- 
tages of  this  system  are  very  obvious  in  that  it  is  a  system 
founded  on  an  intelligent  treatment  of  each  question  at 
issue,  and  encourages  education,  and,  as  far  as  we  can  see 
today,  is  the  most  advanced  method  and  liable  to  produce 
the  best  results.  Collective  bargaining  and  voluntary  arbi- 
tration are  possible,  however,  only  when  the  employer 
recognizes  the  right  of  the  employed  to  have  a  voice  in  the 
fixing  of  wages  and  terms  of  employment.  If  these  billions 
of  capital  have  to  be  organized  to  protect  themselves  against 
disputing  rivalries,  do  not  the  laborers  working  for  these 
organizations  have  the  same  need  of  combination?  Do  they 
not  need  it  for  the  same  reasoji?     Is  capital  exposed  to  cut- 


14  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

throat  competition  in  any  greater  degree  than  labor  is 
exposed  to  it?  How  can  capital  have  the  face  to  ask  for 
combination  in  order  to  free  itself  from  a  murderous  compe- 
tition, when  labor  suffers  every  whit  as  much  from  the 
same  cause?'' 

"I  have  heard  Baldwin,"  his  biographer  goes  on,  "very 
eloquent  on  this  subject.  The  deepest  thing  in  fiim  was  his 
sense  of  justice.  He  felt  it  like  an  insult  that  the  more 
powerful  party  should  stoop  to  ask  such  odds  against  the 
weaker  and  more  defenceless  party."  "We  men  at  the  top," 
says  Baldwin,  "must  have  combination,  we  must  have  our 
representatives  and  'walking  delegates'.  We  have  everything 
that  powerful  organization  can  ask,  with  the  ablest  lawyers 
to  do  our  bidding.  Labor,  to  protect  its  rights  and  stand- 
ards needs  organization,  at  least  as  much  as  we  need  it. 
For  capital  to  use  its  strength  and  skill  to  take  this  weapon 
from  the  working  men  and  women  is  an  outrage.  I  need, 
as  an  emploj-er,  an  organization  among  my  employees,  be- 
cause they  know  their  needs  better  than  I  can  know  them, 
and  they  are,  therefore,  the  safeguard  upon  which  I  must 
depend  in  order  to  prevent  me  from  doing  them  an  injus- 
tice." 

This  is  getting  right  at  the  nerve  of  the  whole  matter. 
No  wiser,  braver,  saner  words  were  ever  spoken.  The  labor 
question  will  be  speedily  settled  when  such  a  spirit  of  justice 
and  fair  plaj-,  such  a  recognition  of  the  elementary  rights 
of  manhood,  gets  possession  of  the  hearts  of  employers.  Of 
the  habit  of  mind  that  cannot  concede  so  much  as  this,  one 
can  say  nothing  better  than  that  it  is  unsportsmanlike.  We 
give  even  the  wild  creatures  a  chance  for  their  lives;  and  so 
long  as  the  industrial  struggle  continues,  the  chivalrous  em- 
ployer will  not  insist  that  his  employees  shall  go  into  the 
contest  with  their  hands  tied  behind  them. 

Beyond  this  question  of  personal  honor  between  em- 
ployer and  employee  is  one  that  touches  very  deeply  the 
foundations  of  their  social  structure.  "If  capital  refuses  to 
labor  what  capital  asks  and  takes  for  itself,  what  are  the 
final  consequences  of  that  injustice?  How.  in  the  long  run, 
is  labor  to  take  this  defeat  of  what  it  believes  to  be  its 
rights?     Those    capitalist    managers,    really    hostile    to    the 


TRADE  UNIONS  15 

unions,  said  to  him  in  excuse  that  the  unions  checked  and 
hindered  the  development  of  business  prosperity.  Baldwin 
had  his  answer:  'Even  if  that  is  true,  it  is  better  to  get  rich 
at  a  somewhat  slower  pace  than  to  make  millions  of  wage- 
earners  lose  faith  in  your  justice  and  fairness.' " 

Is  it  too  much  to  expect  that  our  captains  of  industry 
will. give  sober  heed  to  words  like  these,  spoken  by  one  of 
their  own  number? 

It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  assume  that  the  demo- 
cratization of  industry  will  prove  any  serious  obstruction  to 
the  healthy  growth  of  business.  If  the  trade-unions  have 
often  shown  themselves  to  be  tyrannical  and  greedy,  we 
must  remember  that  they  have  been  fighting,  thus  far,  in  an 
arena  where  belligerent  rights  were  denied  them;  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  that  they  have  sometimes  taken  unfair 
advantages.  When  their  rights  are  fully  recognized,  better 
conduct  may  be  looked  for.  So  long  as  they  are  treated  as 
enemies  it  is  not  logical  to  ask  them  to  behave  as  friends. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  study  the  origin  of  those 
trade-unions  which  have  made  trouble  for  employers.  The 
cases  are  not  all  alike,  but  in  many  instances  something 
like  this  has  happened:  some  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of 
the  men  has  shown  itself,  and  it  becomes  known  to  the  em- 
ployer that  steps  are  being  taken  for  the  organization  of  a 
union.  At  once  his  displeasure  is  manifested.  He  feels 
that  the  action  is  hostile  to  his  interest;  his  entire  attitude 
toward  it  is  unfriendly  from  the  start.  It  becomes  well  un- 
derstood among  the  men  that  those  who  join  the  union  are 
exposing  themselves  to  the  ill  will  of  the  employer;  that 
those  who  refuse  to  join  may  expect  his  favor.  Thus  the 
interests  of  the  men  are  divided,  and  the  non-unionist  con- 
tingent is  fostered  by  the  manager  as  a  force  to  check  and 
defeat  the  unipnists  in  the  event  of  a  struggle.  Under  such 
circumstances  bad  temper  is  generated  on  both  sides,  and 
the  relations  of  all  parties  are  badly  strained.  The  manager 
refuses  to  recognize  the  union;  that,  he  insists,  would  be  an 
injustice  to  the  loyal  men  who  have  refused  to  join  it.  If  a 
imion  with  such  a  history  should  prove  to  be  a  refractory 
and  disturbing  element  in  the  business,  it  would  not  be  a 
miracle. 


l6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Suppose,  now,  that  when  the  first  signs  of  an  uprising 
among  the  men  appear,  the  employer,  instead  of  treating  it 
with  suspicion  or  hostility,  welcomes  it.  Suppose  he  goes 
out  among  the  men  and  says  to  them  what  Baldwin  would 
liave  said:  "Certainly,  men,  you  must  organize.  I  mean  to 
treat  you  fairly,  but  I  do  not  want  you  to  be  dependent 
upon  my  favor;  I  insist  that  you  shall  have  the  power  to 
stand  for  your  own  rights.  And  I  want  all  the  men  in  this 
shop  to  join  this  union,  and  I  expect  the  union  to  be  my 
friend.  This  is  not  my  business,  not  your  business,  it  is  our 
business.  I  shall  study  your  interest  and  you  will  study 
mine;  we  will  consult  together  about  it  all  the  while;  I  think 
we  can  make  it  go  together.  If  you  ask  me  for  what  I 
cannot  give,  I  shall  tell  you  so.  And  I  hope  you  will  learn 
to  believe  that  I  am  telling  you  the  truth.  I  shall  stand 
for  my  rights  if  you  are  mean  and  unreasonable,  and  you 
will  stand  for  yours,  if  you  think  I  am  unjust,  but  if  we 
must  fight  we  stand  on  the  level  and  fight  fair.  I  hope  there 
will  be  no  fighting." 

Now  it  is  possible  that  a  grpup  of  American  workingmen 
could  be  found  who  would  make  trouble  for  an  employer 
who  took  that  attitude  and  consistently  maintained  it,  but  I 
do  not  believe  that  there  are  many  such  groups.  It  would 
be  visionary  to  expect  that  any  method  which  man  could 
devise  would  wholly  remove  friction  and  discontent,  and  a 
strong  and  firm  hand  would  often  be  needed  in  carrying 
out  such  a  purpose  as  this,  but  one  may  confidently  predict 
that  peace  and  prosperity  are  made  nearer  by  this  approach 
than  on  the  lines  of  industrial  feudalism. 

It  will  be  observed  also  that  such  a  line  of  policy  elimin- 
ates the  question  of  the  closed  shop.  If  the  employer  wishes 
all  of  his  employees  to  belong  to  the  union,  and  makes  it 
clear  that  union  men  are  favored,  the  reason  for  a  closed 
shop  practically  disappears.  The  employer's  reason  for  an 
open  shop  is  need  of  a  force  at  hand  to  fight  the  union; 
when  he  makes  the  union  his  ally  instead  of  his  enemy, 
non-unionism  becomes  both  to  him  and  to  his  men  a  neglig- 
ible quantity. 

The  man  who  takes  up  a  purpose  of  this  kind,  whether 
he  is  proprietor  or  general  manager,  cannot  be  guaranteed 


TRADE  UNIONS  17 

an  easy  job.  It  will  not  be  possible  for  him  to  turn  it  over 
to  subordinates;  he  will  have  to  keep  close  to  it  himself.  It 
will  call  for  labor,  for  self  control,  for  faith  in  men,  for  all 
the  best  qualities  of  mind  and  heart. 


American  Federation  of  Labor. 

A  Few  of  Its  Declarations  Upon  Which  It  Appeals  to  All 

Working  People  to  Organize,  Unite,  Federate,  and 

Cement  the  Bonds  of  Fraternity. 

1.  The  abolition  of  all  forms  of  involuntary  servitude, 
except  as  a  punishment  for  crime. 

2.  Free  schools,  free  text-books,  and  compulsory  educa- 
tion. 

3.  Unrelenting  protest  against  the  issuance  and  abuse  of 
injunction  process  in  labor  disputes. 

4.  A  workday  of  not  more  than  eight  hours  in  the 
twenty-four  hour  day. 

5.  A  strict  recognition  of  not  over  eight  hours  per  day 
on  all  federal,  state,  or  municipal  work  and  at  not  less  than 
the  prevailing  per  diem  wage  rate  of  the  class  of  employ- 
ment in  the  vicinity  where  the  work  is  performed. 

6.  Release  from  employment  one  day  in  seven. 

7.  The  abolition  of  the  contract  system  on  public  work. 

8.  The  municipal  ownership  of  public  utilities. 

9.  The  abolition  of  the  sweat-shop  system. 

10.  Sanitary  inspection  of  factory,  workshop,  mine,  and 
home. 

11.  Liability  of  employers  for  injury  to  body  or  loss  of 
life. 

12.  The  nationalization  of  telegraph  and  telephone. 

13.  The  passage  of  anti-child  labor  laws  in  states  where 
they  do  not  exist  and  rigid  defense  of  them  where  they  have 
been  enacted  into  law. 

14.  Woman  suffrage  coequal  with  man  suffrage. 

15.  Suitable  and  plentiful  play  grounds  for  children  in  all 
cities. 

16.  The  initiative  and  referendum  and  the  imperative 
mandate  and  right  of  recall. 


i8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

17.  Continued  agitation  for  the  public  bath  system  in  all 
cities. 

18.  Qualifications  in  permits  to  build,  of  all  cities  and 
towns  that  there  shall  be  bathrooms  and  bathroom  attach- 
ments in  all  houses  or  compartments  used  for  habitation. 

19.  We  favor  a  system  of  finance  whereby  money  shall 
be  issued  exclusively  by  the  government,  with  such  regula- 
tions and  restrictions  as  will  protect  it  from  manipulation 
by  the  banking  interest  for  their  own  private  gain. 

20.  We  favor  a  system  of  United  States  government 
postal  savings  banks. 

The  above  is  a  partial  statement  of  the  demands  whicli 
organized  labor,  in  the  interest  of  the  workers — aye,  of  all 
the  people  of  our  country — makes  upon  modern  society. 

Atlantic.  109:  441-6.  April,  1912. 

Trade-Unions  and   Public   Policy:   Democracy  or  Dynamite? 
Henry  Raymond"  Mussey. 

Only  a  prophet,  or  the  son  of  a  prophet,  would  undertake 
as  yet  to  forecast  the  ultimate  results  of  the  McNamara 
case,  but  it  is  clear  that  organized  labor  has  been  dealt  a 
staggering  blow.  The  brave  talk  of  leaders  of  that  move- 
ment is  in  part  a  mere  whistling  to  keep  up  courage,  and  ifi 
].>art  the  result  of  failure  to  understand  the  situation,  which 
from  their  point  of  view  is  about  as  bad  as  possible.  For  a 
generation  the  leaders  of  the  .American  Federation  of  Labor 
have  been  advocating  purely  'trade'  policies, — collective  bar- 
gaining, the  joint  agreement,  the  union  or  'closed'  shop,  the 
control  of  apprentices,  the  direct  and  indirect  restriction  of 
output,  with  the  strike  and  boycott  always  in  reserve  as  pos- 
sible weapons.  Direct  political  action  they  have  eschewed, 
aiid  a  separate  labor  party  has  been  anathema  to  them.  The 
McXamara  case  represents  the  complete  bankruptcy  of  the 
trade  policy. 

The  reason  for  this  failure  is  simple.  In  the  present 
state  of  industry  and  the  law,  the  employer  is  stronger  than 
his  men.  The  law  protects  his  property,  and  if  he  is  willing 
to    fight   out   the    issue,   he   wins,   in   any   legally   conducted 


TRADE  UNIONS  uj 

struggle,  with  the  aid  of  hunger  and  the  courts.  If  labor 
conditions  are  bad  and  if  the  means  of  information  are  un- 
usually good,  public  opinion  may  sometimes  bring  even  a 
recalcitrant  employer  to  terms;  but,  under  ordinary  condi- 
tions, one  who  is  determined  to  fight  to  a  finish  can  defeat 
his  men  if  they  keep  within  the  law.  Unionists  have  not 
recognized  this  fact,  and  have  not  recognized  that  American 
employers  in  general,  despite  lip-service  to  the  principle  of 
labor  organization,  do, not  believe  in  trade-unions.  This 
lack  of  discernment  has  led  unionists  to  a  futile  and  disas- 
trous reliance  on  'trade'  policies. 

If  the  employers  had  been  conciliatory,  all  might  have 
been  well;  but  they  have  preferred,  on  the  whole,  to  fight 
the  men's  organizations,  and  in  a  long  series  of  labor  con- 
flicts, running  back  to  the  great  Homestead  strike  twenty 
years  ago,  have  carried  on  successful  war  against  them. 
During  recent  years,  while  the  men  have  been  struggling 
vainly  for  the  closed  shop,  employers  have  been  pursuing 
the  union-smashing  policy  with  increasing  vigor  and  success. 

In  .the  course  of  the  struggle,  the  unions  have  sometimes 
gained  their  ends  by  persuasion.  Failing  that,  some  of  their 
members  have  resorted  to  threats  and  intimidation.  Thence 
the  transition  has  been  easy  to  brickbats,  and  thence  to 
dynamite.  Facilis  descensus  Avenio.  Whether  a  strike  can 
succeed  in  the  face  of  stubborn  opposition,  if  force  and  the 
possibility  of  force  be  eliminated,  is  a  question  at  least  open 
to  grave  doubt.  In  any  case  neither  leaders  nor  rank  and 
file  have  set  their  faces  resolutely  against  every  manifesta- 
tion of  violence.  They  could  not  do  so;  for  though  they 
may  not  have  recognized  it  consciously,  a  background  of 
potential  violence  was  almost  an  essential  condition  to  the 
successful  pursuit  of  trade  policies  in  the  face  of  determined 
opposition  from  employers  buttressed  by  the  law. 

In  view  of  these  conditions,  the  public  has  looked  with 
some  indulgence  upon  a  certain  degree  of  lawlessness,  feel- 
ing that  the  men  often  had  a  good  cause,  and  that  the  strike 
was  a  necessary  means  of  obtaining  justice.  The  logical 
result  of  such  indulgence  now  stands  revealed  in  the  Mc- 
Namara  affair,  and  public  opinion  recoils  in  horror  from  what 
it  has  itself  helped  to  create.     What  does  it  all  mean?    We 


20  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

may  well  have  reached  a  turning-point  in  our  industrial  and, 
perhaps,  in  our  political  life. 

For  the  unionist  it  means  a  profound  searching  of  heart 
and,  perhaps,  a  change  of  leadership.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
discuss  the  charges  of  incompetency  and  bad  faith  so  freely 
hurled  at  Mr.  Gompers  and  his  associates  in  this  unhappy 
affair.  Given  the  American  employer  as  he  is,  these  leaders 
are  now  shown  to  have  been  guiding  labor  into  a  cul-dc-sac 
whence  it  could  escape  only  by  using  force.  The  weapon  of 
violence  is  now  struck  from  its  hand,  and  it  must  find  a  new 
one.  Shall  it  be  actual  revolution  or  political  action?  The 
setond  alternative  appears  more  probable,  provided  the 
courts  leave  open  the  possibility  of  progressive  legal  action. 

Labor,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will  now  see  that  the  whole 
power  of  society  will  be  exerted  to  repress  the  private  use 
of  force,  will  see  that  that  way  lies  no  salvation,  will  see 
that  the  old  leaders  have  been  unconsciously  encouraging 
violence,  and  will,  therefore,  turn  definitely  from  those  lead- 
ers and  their  counsels  and  strike  out  in  the  new  paths  of 
direct  political  action,  just  as  labor  has  done  in  England 
with  such  marked  success.  The  Socialist  party  may  well  be 
,the  residuary  legatee  of  the  McNamara  case,  or  we'  may 
possibly  see  an  entirely  new  labor  party.  In  either  case, 
the  result  would  be  almost  wholly  desirable;  for  the  labor 
movement  would  be  proceeding  along  lines  where  results, 
though  slow,  would  in  time  be  possible  of  realization,  be- 
cause the  rights  and  grievances  of  labor  could  be  presented 
effectively  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion.  Labor  cannot  get 
its  progressive  rights  by  its  own  unaided  struggles.  Such 
attainment  involves  a  progressive  change  in  ideas,  laws,  and 
institutions  that  can  come  about  only  as  a  result  of  in- 
formed public  discussion.  The  difficulty  with  the  trade  pol- 
icy is  that  it  involves  such  discussion  only  between  the  two 
parties  directly  interested. 

If  the  McNamara  case  should  lead  to  a  distinctly  politi- 
cal labor  movement,  thoughtful  persons  might  well  rejoice. 
Such  a.  movement  would  undoubtedly  be  democratic,  radical, 
probably  socialistic;  it  would  have  comparatively  small  re- 
gard for  property  rights,  and  comparatively  great  regard 
for  personal   human   rights;   it  would  certainly  cause   mem- 


TRADE  UNIONS  21 

bers  of  the  American  Liberty  and  Property  League  to  lie 
awake  nights  over  its  unsafe  notions;  it  would  do  much 
blundering  politically  unless  it  were  unexpectedly  well  led; 
it  would  probably  advocate  some  economically  impossible 
measures;  and  it  would  exercise  a  tremendous  influence  for 
good  in  our  political,  legal,  and  economic  development. 
Under  our  two-party  system  of  non-representative  govern- 
ment we  lack  the  machinery  for  getting  at  the  facts  neces- 
sary for  intelligent  public  judgment  of  many  important 
questions,  and  we  have  no  proper  organization  to  formulate 
and  express  such  judgment.  A  labor  party  might  well  be 
of  service  in  both  the  formation  and  the  expression  of  sound 
public  opinion. 

To  turn  from  the  labor  group,  what  will  be  the  attitude 
of  the  public  in  view  of  the  astonishing  revelations  and 
reticences  of  the  Los  Angeles  trial?  'The  public,'  so-called, 
includes  the  farmers,  the  artisans  in  small  places,  the  smaller 
tradesmen  everywhere,  and  to  some  extent  the  large  ones 
as  well,  the  salaried  and  professional  classes,  in  so  far  as 
they  are  not  closely  attached  to  large  employers — in  a  word, 
it  includes  all  those  who  are  not  directly  parties  to  the 
struggle,  those  who  are  not  employers  or  employees  in 
organized  trades,  or  in  industries  where  men  work  in  large 
masses.  Heretofore,  this  public,  brought  up  in  a  tradition 
of  ultra-individualism,  has  viewed  suspiciously  the  combina- 
tion of  workmen  in  frank  recognition  of  a  class-interest;  it 
has  resented  the  invasion  of  the  'individual  liberty'  of  the 
non-union  workman  by  the  union-shop  policy;  it  has  listened 
sympathetically  to  the  employer's  complaints  of  interference 
with  the  efficiency  of  his  business;  and  it  has  reprobated  the 
attack  on  civilization  involved  in  the  use  of  brickbats  and 
dynamite,  though  it  has  rightly  been  unwilling  to  believe 
that  any  considerable  proportion  of  union  men  favored  the 
use  of  such  weapons.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  had  an 
uneasy  consciousness  that  somehow  the  employer  was  get- 
ting undue  power,  and  it  has  been  inclined  to  give  the 
union  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  as  the  only  agency  offering 
in  any  way  to  redress  the  balance;  it  has  felt  that  so  long  as 
the  methods  used  were  not  too  outrageous,  some  allowance 


22  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ought  to  be  made,  because  in  the  industrial  world,  save  on 
the  Fourth  of  July,  all  men  are  not  free  and  equal. 

To  a  public  in  this  frame  of  mind  have  come  the  Mc- 
Namara  revelations.  It  has  the  confession  of  leaders  in  one 
union  to  two  dynamite  outrages;  it  has  reason  to  believe  that 
men  in  this  same  organization  have  been  responsible  for  a 
long  scries  of  similar  events;  it  has  seen  the  leaders  of 
organized  labor  rushing  to  the  defense  of  these  now  self- 
confessed  dynamiters;  and  now  that  the  confession  has 
come,  it  sees  the  leader  of  them  all  with  nothing  better  to 
oflfer  than  the  excuse  that  he  has  been  cruelly  deceived,  and 
it  finds  itself  wondering  whether  the  whole  labor  move- 
ment is  not  "run  primarily  for  the  benefit  of  a  coterie  of 
more  or  less  lawless  leaders. 

In  this  new  frame  of  mind,  the  public  will  doubtless  be 
inclined  to  endure  with  far  less  equanimity  than  hereto- 
fore the  inconvenience,  suflfering,  and  danger  brought  upon 
it  by  strikes,  and  to  demand  more  insistently  that  employees 
patch  up  their  differences  with  their  employers  without 
blowing  society  into  bits  with  dynamite.  Moreover,  as  the 
employer  is  usually  the  one  who  invokes  the  law,  and  the 
worker,  so  far  as  the  public  is  informed,  the  one  who  places 
the  dynamite,  it  is  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  employer, 
after  all,  was  right  in  fighting  these  lawless  organizations, 
as  it  now  thinks  them.  Both  the  facts  and  the  logic  under- 
lying this  conclusion  are  confused,  but  the  resulting  state  of 
mind  contains  possibilities  of  no  less  grave  danger  on  that 
account,  and  it  throws  on  employers  a  tremendous  responsi- 
bility. 

The  American  employer  has  on  the  whole  been  opposed 
to  trade-unions.  He  recognizes  the  right  of  labor  to  or- 
ganize, but — it  must  not  make  trouble  about  wages,  it  must 
not  'interfere'  with  the  management  of  the  shop  or  the  condi- 
tions under  which  labor  is  carried  on;  it  must  not  do  any  of 
the  things  for  which,  primarily,  unions  come  into  existence. 
So  long  as  this  simple  condition  is  complied  with,  the  em- 
ployer favors  the  organization  of  his  workers — otherwise 
not.  As  a  result  of  the  McNamara  affair,  employers'  union- 
smashing  organizations  are  likely  to  find  their  hands 
strengthened  in  the  righteous  work  upon  which  they  are  en- 


TRADE  UNIONS  23 

gaged,  and  are  likely  to  push  on  with  it.  Let  a  union  over- 
step the  law  ever  so  little,  and  they  will  pounce  down  upon 
it;  the  successful  pursuit  of  trade  policies  will  be  even  more 
nearly  impossible  in  the  next  decade  than  it  has  been  in  the 
past. 

A  secondary  effect  may  well  be  more  considerate  treat- 
ment by  employers  of  their  workers  individually.  They 
have  won  a  great  victory;  they  have  labor  down;  they  can 
afford  to  be  magnanimous.  Workmen's  compensation,  the 
installation  of  devices  for  sanitation  and  safetj',  welfare 
work  of  all  kinds,  these  and  other  similar  lines  of  action 
they  may  take  up  with  even  greater  enthusiasm  than  here- 
tofore. The  employer  is  beginning  to  find  that  such  work 
in  the  long  run  pays  in  dollars  and  cents.  Furthermore,  he 
lionestly  wants  to  do  something  for  his  employees.  The 
things  he  wants  to  do  are  useful  and  will  improve  the  con- 
dition of  the  laborer,  but  they  will  not  solve  the  labor  prob- 
lem. The  solution  of  that  problem  is  just  the  task  the 
employer  must  now  set  himself.    . 

He  can  solve  it  temporarily  by  repression.  Pittsburg  has 
solved  ifc  for  twenty  years  in  that  fashion,  and  today  she, 
sleeps  on  a  volcano.  Let  the  men  of  the  American  Manu- 
facturers' Association  and  their  like  have  their  way,  as  they 
probably  can  do  in  the  existing  state  of  the  public  mind, 
and  we  shall  have  peace  in  the  labor  world — peace  without 
justice,  and  dynamite  at  the  end;  for  dynamite  is  the  weapon 
of  the  man  who  feels  that  he  can  get  justice  in  no  other 
way.  If  employers  wish  such  results  on  a  nation-wide 
scale,  let  the  repressive  policy  go  on. 

The  labor-smashers,  with  their  narrow  vision,  cannot  be 
expected  to  see  in  the  labor  movement  anything  more  than 
a  sordid  struggle  for  higher  wages  and  shorter  hours,  com- 
bined with  meddling  interference  with  shop-rules  by  an 
ignorant  and  irresponsible  walking  delegate;  the  workers 
themselves  for  the  most  part  may  see  it  from  the  same 
point  of  view;  but  the  situation  demands  a  broader  vision. 
Is  it  too  much  to  expect  broad-minded  employers  to  catch 
a  glimpse  of  the  idea  that  the  old  labor  movement,  with 
all  its  blundering,  represented  a  struggle  toward  the  demo- 
cratization   of    industry?     That    movement    may    have    been 


i4  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

stupid,  it  may  have  hampered  the  efficiency  of  production, 
it  may  have  contained  elements  that  necessitated  its  destruc- 
tion, but  the  fundamental  moving  spirit  in  it  was  socially 
right,  for  it  was  the  spirit  of  democracy.  Even  the  de- 
mand for  'recognition'  of  the  union,  the  bete  iioir  of  Amer- 
ican employers,  with  its  concomitants  of  the  closed  shop 
and  exclusion  of  the  non-unionist,  was  at  bottom  democratic, 
for  it  meant  that  the  men  themselves  demanded  a  share  in 
determining  pay  and  conditions  of  work.  The  battle  for 
democracy  in  industry  is  lost  for  the  present.  Will  the  em- 
ployer be  wise  enough  to  recognize  that  the  wrong  has 
triumphed  because  the  right  directed  its  attack  unwisely? 
Will  he  realize  that  this  hour  of  triumph  gives  him  oppor- 
tunity unexampled  for  public  injury  or  for  public  service? 

In  the  slow  growth  of  real  democracy,  perhaps  the  most 
difficult  problem  at  present  facing  us  is  the  democratizing 
of  industry,  the  reconciling  of  economic  efficiency  through 
large-scale  production  with  non-autocratic  management, 
making  industry  responsive  to  the  needs  and  wishes  of  the 
men  who  work  in  it,  and  of  the  public  whom  it  serves. 
This  has  given  rise  to  the  labor  problem  and  the  trust 
problem.  The  business  man  has  been  blindly  struggling 
for  what  he  considered  his  rights  in  both  relations,  that  is, 
trying  to  maintain  the  status  quo.  Only  a  handful  of  con- 
cerns in  the  country  are  making  any  serious  attempt  at 
genuinely  democratic  organization.  The  old  oligarchical  ar- 
rangement looks  so  much  simpler  and  easier,  the  men,  in 
general,  are  so  ill-fitted  to  participate  intelligently  in  store 
and  factory  management,  and  the  old  system  appears  on  its 
face  so  much  more  efficient,  that  few  employers  have  the 
imagination  or  the  courage  to  try  anything  fundamentally 
new.  Instead,  they  insist  on  'running  their  own  business,' 
and  trying  to  keep  their  men  contented  by  means  of  welfare 
work,  pensions,  and  similar  improvements  that  leave  con- 
trol of  important  matters  in  the  hands  of  the  employer. 
Consequently  no  progress  is  made  toward  the  solution  of 
the  real  problem,  which  is  to  make  the  employer's  business 
not  simply  his  business,  but  that  of  every  man  concerned  in 
carrying  it  on,  and  of  the  public  that  is  served  by  it.  Un- 
less  the   employer  can   now  be   brought   to   realize   that   his 


TRADE  UNIONS  25 

failure  to  face  this  problem  is  a  fundamental  cause  of  the 
McNamara  affair  and  all  it  represents,  and  unless  he  can  be 
brought  to  undertake  the  solution  of  the  problem,  it  must  be 
confessed  that  the  prospect  for  the  immediate  future  is  not 
rosy. 

It  is  idle  to  believe  that  the  employer  could  for  lonfe  ride 
victorious  on  the  backs  of  a  race  of  conquered  workmen. 
Civilization  has  progressed  too  far  for  that,  and  revolution 
would  quickly  shatter  such  a  society  in  pieces.  But  society 
cannot  and  will  not  endure,  as  the  alternative  to  this,  the 
breakdown  of  civil  order  and  the  creation  of  anarchy  when- 
ever employer  and  workman  cannot  come  to  terms. 

It  may  be  said,  then,  that  the  only  escape  is  through 
socialism,  public  ownership  and  operation  of  the  social  in- 
dustries. But  merely  to  make  industry  public  is  to  offer  no 
guarantee  of  democracy  within  industry.  Wages,  hours,  and 
conditions  of  work  may  be  determined  from  above  just  as 
much  as  in  privately-owned  industry.  Witness  the  New 
York  street-cleaners'  strike.  Through  the  weeks  of  that 
strike  nothing  was  more  evident  than  the  inability  of  the 
men  to  get  their  side  of  the  case  heard.  The  case  may  have 
been  weak,  but  in  any  decently  organized  industry  there 
ought  to  be  a  chance  for  a  fair  presentation  of  grievances, 
a  full  discussion  of  them,  and  a  settlement  that  represents 
more  than  the  mere  fiat  of  some  individual.  Public  employ- 
ment offers  no  guarantee  of  any  such  thing;  like  private 
employment  it  is  usually  undemocratic.  The  solution  must 
be  worked  out  by  adjusting  the  relations  between  employer 
and  employed  in  public  and  private  industry  alike,  and  not 
by  merely  making  private  industry  public. 

From  all  this  one  definite  conclusion  seems  to  emerge. 
Orderly  social  progress  at  present  is  conditioned  on  em- 
ployers' recognizing  that  their  business  is  no  longer  their 
own,  that  its  social  responsibilities  outweigh  their  individ- 
ual rights  in  it,  that  they  must  serve  the  public  so  well  that 
it  will  be  satisfied  with  their  administration,  and  must  for- 
ward as  rapidly  as  they  can  the  process  of  democratization 
within  industry  itself  so  as  to  secure  from  their  workers 
the  necessary  measure  of  cooperation  in  public  service. 
Only  by  this  means  can  they  retain  their  leadership  in  the 


443S 


26  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

world  of  industry.  They  seem  for  the  moment  to  have 
triumphed  over  the  dynamiters.  Would  they  make  that 
triumph  real?  Let  them  accept  the  necessary  condition. 
They  must  make  their  choice — shall  it  be  democracy  or 
dynamite? 

City  Club  Bulletin.  2:  279-91.  February  17,  1909. 

Political  and  Legal  Policies  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.     Raymond  Robins. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  the  national  feder- 
ation of  the  organized  workingmen  in  America.  There  were 
several  other  groups  preceding  its  organization  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  labor  movement  in  this  country,  but  today,  and 
for  some  twenty  j'ears  past,  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  with  Mr.  .Samuel  Gompcrs  as  its  president,  has  been 
the  national  bo^y  representing  the  union  wage  earners  of 
the  United  States.  Of  much  more  recent  date,  but  in  a 
similar  capacity  and  degree,  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers  with  Mr.  James  W.  Van  Cleave  as  its  presi- 
dent, is  the  national  body  representing  organized  capital  in 
the  United  States.  The  forces  represented  by  these  two 
organizations  are  in  fundamental  opposition,  and  in  the  con- 
flict that  is  in  progress  between  them  the  issue  has  reached 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  one  aspect,  and 
is  now  on  appeal  to  the  court  of  last  resort  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  upon  another.  These  two  militant  groups  that 
stand  facing  each  other  in  the  industrial  struggle  in  this 
country  are  composed,  as  any  large  group  of  individuals  will 
always  be,  of  men  that  are  honest  and  men  that  arc  not  so 
honest,  of  men  that  are  wise  and  men  that  are  not  so  wise, 
and  man  for  man  they  might  not  differ  greatly  in  private 
morals  or  personal  character.  Yet,  they  are  divided  definite- 
ly and  are  in  vital  and  bitter  opposition  as  the  result  of  a 
fundamental  conflict  in  idea  and  purpose,  and  if  we  are  to 
reach  a  sound  social  judgment  upon  the  merits  of  this  great 
struggle,  we  must  understand  this  fundamental  idea  and  pur- 
pose that  inspires  and  dominates  each  group. 

The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  is  organized, 


TRADE  UNIONS  27 

financed  and  controlled  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  prof- 
its for  the  few  from  the  labor  of  the  many  in  the  industrial 
undertakings  of  the  United  States.  The  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  is  organized,  financed  and  controlled  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  and  maintaining  individual  welfare, 
manhood  and  citizenship  values  for  laborers  in  the  indus- 
trial undertakings  of  the  United  States.  There  are,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  a  great  many  subsidiary  issues,  but  this  is 
the  fundamental  division.  The  vigorous  opposition  to  child 
labor,  to  overtime  and  underpay  for  women,  to  dangerous 
machinery  and  to  insanitary  workshops  by  organized  labor; 
and  the  indifference  to  all  these  conditions  by  organized  cap- 
ital, with  similar  divisions  upon  questions  of  employers'  lia- 
bility and  old  age  pensions,  are  but  natural  and  inevitable 
outgrowths  of  the  fundamental  idea  and  purpose  dominating 
each  group. 

Here  it  would  be  well  to  remember  that  this  struggle  did 
not  begin  yesterday.  Laborers  had  definitely  organized  in 
certain  trades  in  the  United  States  as  early  as  1806.  By  the 
middle  of  the  last  century  organization  among  laborers  in 
many  crafts  was  well  advanced.  That  it  is  only  within  the 
last  generation  that  the  labor  question  has  bulked  large  in 
the  problems  of  our  national  life,  is  due  to  two  great  in- 
fluences in  the  history  of  our  development  as  an  industrial 
people — the  one,  the  western  frontier;  the  other,  the  per- 
sonal relations  between  master  and  workman. 

Until  nearly  the  close  of  the  last  century,  there  was  a 
more  or  less  easy  outlet  for  the  surplus  laborers  of  the 
L^nited  States.  The  great  frontier  was  constantly  relieving 
the  centres  of  population  from  the  pressure  of  too  abundant 
labor,  and  whenever  labor  conditions  tended  to  grow  intol- 
erable, workingmen  went  west.  This  frequent  movement 
across  the  Alleghenies  forced  employers  to  consider  the 
wages  and  working  conditions  of  laborers  in  relation  to 
such  free  opportunity,  and  it  operated  to  insure  such  condi- 
tions as  were  tolerable  in  nearly  all  the  trades.  There  is 
much  interesting  testimony  written  into  the  records  and  dis- 
cussions of  chambers  of  commerce  and  employers'  clubs 
upon  this  important  element  in  fixing  the  cost  of  labor. 
Side  by  side  with  the  development  of  free  opportunity  in  the 


28  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

West  was  a  second  influence  operating  to  ameliorate  the 
conditions  of  the  industrial  struggle.  For  nearly  a  century 
the  personal  relations  between  master  and  workman,  em- 
ployer and  employe,  were  direct,  many  times  friendly,  and 
nearly  always  humane.  This  relationship  yet  remains  in 
isolated  cases,  but  it  is  interesting  now  only  for  its  past  in- 
fluence upon  the  industrial  problem,  and  as  a  survival  of  a 
system  that  is  rapidly  passing  away.  As  the  corporation  has 
advanced  in  the  control  of  industrial  capital,  an  impersonal, 
non-human,  non-moral,  and  many  times  non-resident 
responsibility,  has  been  slowly  substituted  for  the  old 
friendly,  not  to  say  fratenjal,  relationship  between  mas- 
ter and  workman.  The  old  sense  of  personal  obligation 
has  ceased  to  exist  between  employers  and  employes  in 
many  of  the  basic  industries  of  the  nation.  Living,  friendly 
employers  have  been  transformed  into  cold,  metalic  capital, 
but  the  laborer  remains  as  he  was.  He  cannot  be  divorced 
from  his  labor;  with  body,  brain  and  heart,  as  citizen,  hus- 
band and  father,  he  is  all  on  the  job  wherever  his  labor  is 
applied.  The  loss  of  this  living  and  sympathetic  reaction 
from  employers  is  responsible  in  no  small  degree  for  the 
intensity  and  bitterness  of  the  present  industrial  struggle. 
Thus  it  will  appear  that  the  closing  of  the  outlet  for  surplus 
laborers  towards  the  West  came  hand  in  hand  with  the 
steady  advance  of  corporate  control  of  industrial  capital, 
and  that  both  have  united  in  the  last  decade  to  make  the  in- 
dustrial struggle  increasingly  inevitable  and  increasingly  in- 
tense. 

It  now  remains  to  consider  a  change  in  leadership  and 
methods  that  has  taken  place  within  each  group  under  the 
pressure  of  the  struggle.  In  the  employers'  group  there 
have  always  been  two  types  of  men.  One,  the  employer 
who  by  nature  was  reasonable  and  fair,  and  the  other,  the 
employer  known  as  a  'labor  skinner.'  This  latter  type  was 
never  satisfied  with  the  terms  nor  the  results  of  the  conflict 
between  organized  capital  and  organized  labor  as  fought 
out  on  the  industrial  field.  The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek. 
It  is  historically  true  that  laborers  made  steady  gains  in  con- 
ditions and  wages  so  long  as  the  contest  between  capital 
and  workingmen   was   carried   on   by   arbitration   and    trade 


TRADE  UNIONS  29 

agreement.  Organized  laborers  did  not  make  these  gains 
by  reason  of  their  superior  ability  or  education.  The  time 
and  place  of  these  contests  and  settlements  were  usually 
chosen  by  the  employers.  A  committee  of  plain  men,  often 
poorly  educated,  met  around  a  table  with  the  chosen  repre- 
sentatives of  capital,  and  there  discussed  wages,  hours,  and 
shop  conditions  with  the  ablest  masters  of  industry  in  the 
land.  And,  generally  there  were  from  one  to  three  keen 
lawyers  present  representing  capital,  paid  for  the  purpose  of 
objecting,  disputing  and  contending  against  every  clause  in 
the  agreement  that  involved  a  little  more  cost  to  capital. 
Any  person  in  this  room  who  has  been  present  on  such  an 
occasion  can  recall  the  picture  as  I  have  described  it. 

Humanity,  motherhood  and  childhood,  a  fair  standard  of 
living  for  American  homes,  the  right  to  a  wife  and  to  chil- 
dren brought  up  under  decent  conditions — all  these  are  de- 
mands fundamentally  strong  in  the  minds  of  the  whole 
American  people.  It  is  very  difficult  for  a  group  of  living 
men  to  be  wholly  selfish  when  talking  face  to  face.  We  be- 
come ashamed  of  our  greed  and  indifference  under  such 
conditions.  Thus  it  was  that  organized  laborers  made  their 
advances  on  the  industrial  field  by  reason  of  the  great  hu- 
man values  and  the  essential  justice  involved  in  their  claims, 
together  with  the  silent  yet  powerful  influence  of  public 
opinion.  These  results  were  so  unsatisfactory  to  the  'labor 
skinners'  among  the  employers  of  the  country  that  they 
determined  to  reorganize  and  abandon  the  methods  of  con- 
ference, discussion  of  differences,  and  collective  bargaining 
in  the  industrial  conflict.  As  early  as  1886,  there  were 
formed  groups  of  organized  capital,  the  executive  manage- 
ment of  which  definitely  opposed  arbitration  and  the  trade 
agreement,  and  sought  to  force  the  settlement  of  industrial 
disputes  by  conspiracy  legislation  and  extensions  of  the  writ 
of  injunction.  This  move  by  organized  capital  is  of  first 
importance  in  understanding  the  legal  and  political  policy  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  first  article  of  faith 
of  these  associations  of  capital  is,  'We  won't  treat  with 
organized  laborers';  and  the  second  is  like  unto  it,  'We 
won't  allow  any  walking  delegate  to  interfere  with  our 
business.' 


30  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Since  organization  among  laborers  is  a  natural  and  com- 
mon right,  and  is  made  increasingly  necessary  by  the  pres- 
sure of  the  industrial  struggle,  and  since  the  walking  dele- 
gate or  shop  steward  or  shop  woman,  is  simply  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  laborers  in  the  enforcement  of  the  terms  of 
their  contract,  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  see  how  it  can  be  the 
business  of  capital  alone,  when  'our  business'  has  to  do  with 
the  livelihood  and  living  conditions  of  many  laborers.  But 
this  was  the  way  they  thought  and  this  was  the  way  they 
talked.  These  associations  of  capital  raised  large  'war 
funds,'  hired  able  counsel,  and  sought  out  favored  positions 
before  legislatures  and  the  courts.  Driven  from  the  indus- 
trial field  of  arbitration  and  trade  agreement  by  the  steady 
advance  of  public  opinion  and  the  increasing  intelligence  of 
organized  laborers,  these  associations  of  organized  capital 
have  deliberately  set  up  their  guns  in  legislative  lobbies  and 
friendly  courts,  and  have  begun  to  shell  organized  labor 
with  conspiracy  laws  secretly  lobbied  through  legislatures, 
injunctions  without  notice,  and  affidavit  imprisonments  with- 
out trial-by-jury,  through  ignorant  or  prejudiced  judges,  _ 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  while  these  associations  of 
capital  fear  the  awakening  of  the  political  consciousness  of 
6rganized  laborers  and  their  combination  into  an  eflfective 
political  force,  they  have  adopted  the  very  method  that  will 
insure  this  result.  Ignorant  of  the  fundamental  character  of 
the  labor  movement,  indifferent  to  the  graphic  lessons  of  cur- 
rent history  in  Australia  and  England,  in  stupid  arrogance 
and  childlike  defiance,  they  have  set  up  their  fortifications 
on  the  political  field. 

Let  us  now  consider  briefly  the  change  in  leadership  and 
methods  that  has  taken  place  within  the  group  of  organized 
laborers.  Here  again  we  find  an  internal  struggle  between 
two  types  for  leadership  of  the  group.  The  conflict  from 
the  beginning  of  organization  has  been  between  political 
labor  leaders,  and  industrial  organizers  and  trade  adminis- 
trators in  the  real  sense.  The  political  labor  leaders  have 
sought  to  use  the  industrial  struggle  for  partisan  political 
advantage  and  for  personal  gain.  They  have  been  sheltered 
and  financed  by  both  political  party  organizations,  and  when 
things  were  dull  in  politics,  have  now  and  again  trafficked 


TRADE  UNIONS  31 

in  their  influence  over  laborers  for  the  advantage  ot  rival 
organizations  of  capital.  Leaders  of  this  type  as  they  be- 
came known  in  the  labor  movement,  were  classified  as  'labor 
skates,'  and  have  been  uniformly  more  powerful  in  their 
words  than  in  their  deeds.  Nevertheless,  they  have  fre- 
quently betrayed  the  workers,  sometimes  for  personal  gains, 
and  sometimes  through  ignorance  of  the  real  ends  of  organ- 
ization among  laborers.  In  the  councils  of  organized  la- 
borers there  has  ever  been  a  contest  for  control  between  the 
political  and  industrial  leaders  of  the  workingmen.  It  is 
necessary  here  to  make  an  important  distinction.  Political 
action  by  organizations  of  laborers  for  partisan  political  pur- 
poses, or  for  personal  preferment  for  their  leaders  is  one 
thing,  and  political  action  for  an  industrial  purpose  in  re- 
sponse to  adverse  industrial  legislation,  or  prejudiced  judi- 
cial interpretation,  is  a  very  different  thing.  The  Knights  of 
Labor  went  to  pieces  on  the  rock  of  political  action  that  was 
partisan  or  personal  in  its  expression  or  motive.  The  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  is  today,  and  for  some  twenty-six 
years  has  been  presided  over  by  a  man  who  rose  to  leader- 
ship in  the  national  councils  of  organized  laborers  as  the 
representative  of  the  industrial  organizing  and  trade  admin- 
istrative group,  as  against  the  political  group  in  the  labor 
movement  of  the  United  States.  For  a  quarter  of  a  century 
President  Gompers  has  labored  unceasingly  against  countless 
efforts  to  inject  partisan  and  personal  politics  into  the  pro- 
gram of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  extraor- 
dinary growth  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  from  a 
few  thousand  'rebels'  from  the  Knights  of  Labor,  to  a  paying 
membership  of  over  1,600,000  union  men,  has  been  largely 
due  to  its  definite  and  consistent  adherence  to  an  industrial 
'program  as  distinguished  from  the  political  programs  that 
have  disrupted  the  other  national  organizations  of  laborers 
in  this  country. 

It  is  interesting  to  reflect  that  the  development  of  the 
organizations  of  capital  has  given  control  to  its  worst  men 
and  methods,  while  the  development  of  the  organizations  of 
laborers  has  given  control  to  their  best  men  and  methods. 
This  directly  opposite  working  out  of  men  and  methods  in 
the  two  groups,  doubtless  reflects  the  fundamental  difference 


32  SKLFXTED  ARTICLES 

in  the  main  idea  and  purpose  of  each.  Profit  seeking  for  the 
few  leads  to  the  triumph  of  narrow,  selfish  and  arbitrary 
men,  just  as  the  seeking  of  individual  human  values  for  the 
many  gives  leadership  to  broadminded,  sympathetic  and 
democratic  men. 

We  can  now  survey  the  field.  We  can  see  the  organiza- 
tion of  militant  capital,  seeking  profit  values  from  industry 
for  the  few,  with  its  citizens'  alliances,  trade,  employers'  and 
manufacturers'  associations  culminating  in  the  National  As- 
sociation of  Manufacturers,  with  its  war  fund  of  $1,500,000, 
attorneys,  detective  and  press  bureaus,  legislative  lobbies, 
blacklists  and  injunctions;  face  to  face  with  the  organization 
of  militant  laborers,  seeking  human  and  citizenship  values 
from  industry  for  the  many,  with  their  local  and  interna- 
tional unions,  city  and  state  federations,  culuminating  in  the 
American*  Federation  of  Labor  with  its  1,600,000  members, 
strike  benefits,  labor  papers  and  unfair  lists. 

Let  us  now  consider  two  conflicts  between  these  forces, 
one  in  the  equity  court,  the  other  in  the  legislature,  and  both 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,  within  the  last  five  years. 

The  printers'  organization  known  as  the  International 
Typographical  Union,  is  one  of  the  most  highly  skilled  and 
conservative  of  the  trade  organizations  of  the  world.  In 
1905  this  union  sought  to  establish  the  eight  hour  day  in  all 
the  printing  shops  of  this  country.  This  move  was  defended 
by  the  officers  of  the  union  not  only  on  the  ground  that  eight 
hours  was  a  reasonable  work-day,  but  also  on  the  ground 
that  as  it  had  been  established  largely  in  Australia  and  Eng- 
land and  in  some  of  the  larger  shops  of  the  United  States, 
to  make  the  eight-hour  day  universal  would  prevent  unfair 
competition  by  those  shops  in  which  the  greed  of  capital 
sought  to  maintain  a  working  day  of  nine  or  ten  hours.  It . 
was  a  struggle  between  the  fair  working  day  that  would 
leave  enough  time  and  energy  for  the  human  and  citizenship 
values  of  the  printer,  and  the  anti-social  working  day  that 
leaves  the  printer  insufficient  time  or  energy  for  his  duties  as 
a  citizen,  husband  and  father.  The  demand  was  granted  in 
many  shops,  but  in  some  cities  organized  capital  in  the  print- 
ing trades  preferred  to  fight  the  demand.  The  Chicago  Ty- 
pothetae  was  one  of  these  organizations.     A  bill  was  filed  in 


TRADE  UNIONS  33 

ihc  chancery  division  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cook  County 
containing  the  usual  allegations  of  conspiracy,  boycott,  co- 
ercion and  violence  against  the  members  and  officers  of 
Tj'pographical  Union  No.  16,  the  local  organization  of  the 
journeyman  printers  of  this  city.  Judge  Holdoni,  sitting  as 
chancellor,  issued  an  injunction  against  Local  No.  16  of  the 
International  Typographical  Union,  its  officers  and  members, 
restraining  them  among  many  other  things  from  certain  acts 
in  the  language  following: 

From  organizing  or  maintaining  any  boycott  against  said  com- 
plainants or  any  of  them. 

From  attempting  to  Induce  customers  or  other  persons  to  ab- 
stain from  working  for  or  accepting  work  from  said  complainants 
or  any  of  them. 

Upon  affidavits  alleging  various  violations  of  the  prohibi- 
tions of  this  injunction,  Edwin  R.  Wright,  president,  and  John 
C.  Harding,  secretary,  for  Local  No.  16,  both  well  known 
citizens  of  this  city,  each  having  been  honored  with  impor- 
tant public  trusts,  the  one  by  a  Republican  governor  of  the 
state,  and  the  other  by  a  Democratic  Mayor  of  this  city, 
were  summarily  sentenced  to  prison,  and  the  local  union 
was  fined  $1,000.  In  cominenting  upon  this  decision  Mr. 
Harding  said:  'The  injunction  was  doubtless  sought  with 
the  intent  that  it  should  be  disobeyed.  In  the  exercise  of 
our  necessary  and  legal  duties  as  officers  of  the  union,  we 
could  not  help  but  disobey  this  writ.  It  seems  to  have  been 
sought  for  the  purpose  of  imprisoning  the  officials  of  the 
union  •^'ithout  due  process  of  law,  to  the  end  that  the  work 
of  the  union  should  become  disorganized,  and  the  printers 
frightened  into  submission  and  the  abandonment  of  their 
just  demands.'  Public  opinion  became  so  aroused  over  this 
sentence,  that  its  enforcement  was  abandoned,  and  neither 
the  imprisonment  nor  the  judgment  of  fine  was  ever  execut- 
ed. There  is  no  statute  in  the  laws  of  Illinois  that  makes 
the  peaceful  soliciting  of  one  workingman  by  another  not  to 
work  for  an  employer  an  illegal  act.  Nor  is  there  any  stat- 
ute that  makes  the  exercise  of  public  opinion  upon  indus- 
trial conditions  in  the  form  of  the  direct  boycott  an  illegal 
act.  Both  actions  are  believed  to  be  within  the  constitu- 
tional guarantees  of  the  federal  and  state  constitutions,  and 
both  are  deemed  necessary  for  the  effective  functioning  of 
public   opinion   in   behalf  of   fair  working  conditions  by  all 


34  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

men  in  the  labor  movement,  and  by  all  authoritative  students 
of  social  problems  in  this  country  and  in  England. 

Now  for  the  legislative  lobby.  This  afternoon,  as  you 
gentlemen  sit  in  your  chairs,  the  worker  in  Illinois,  man  or 
woman,  engaged  in  a  dangerous  trade  is  less  well  protected 
by  law  than  if  he  or  she  were  working  in  Finland.  You  may 
remember  a  discussion  held  at  this  club  upon  the  merits  of 
a  proposed  bill  then  pending  in  the  legislature  for  the  pro- 
tection of  workers  in  dangerous  trades  in  the  state  of  Illinois. 
In  that  discussion  a  union'  man,  president  of  an  organization 
of  woodworkers  in  this  city,  made  the  following  statement: 

Having  worked  In  the  woodworking  industry  for  the  past  twen- 
ty years,  I  think  I  know  something  about  tlie  danger  of  wood- 
working machinery.  It  is  not  alone  that  men  are  lo.sing  their 
limbs,  but  the  fact  is  universally  recognized  that  a  mechanic  who 
works  on  a  shaper  finds  it  difficult  to  get  a  job  if  he  has  all  his 
fingers,  because  the  foreman  won't  think  he  has  had  sufficient 
experience. 

The  passage  of  that  bill  as  here  discussed  was  advocated 
by  the  organized  laborers  of  this  state,  and  by  many  other 
organizations  interested  in  the  social  welfare  of  the  people 
of  Illinois.  Organized  capital  in  the  form  of  the  Illinois 
Manufacturers'  Association  opposed  this  bill.  Mr.  John  M. 
Glenn,  secretary  for  the  association,  appeared  at  Springfield 
to  block  its  passage  and  circulars  containing  false  statements 
were  sent  out  over  the  state  by  the  association.  This  cam- 
paign carried  on  by  the  peculiar  methods  of  the  Illinois 
Manufacturers'Association  was  successful,  and  'the  protected 
machinery  bill'  was  defeated  in  the  legislature.  Thanks  to 
organized  capital,  wc  have  suffered  two  more  years  of  the 
harvest  of  industrial  cripples  in  this  State. 

Now,  if  organized  capital  goes  into  politics  for  industrial 
purposes,  what  will  organized  labor  be  forced  to  do?  If  or- 
ganized laborers  are  prevented  from  protecting  the  lives  and 
limbs  of  the  workers,  and  are  denied  the  exercise  of  free 
speech  and  free  press  in  their  efforts  to  secure  the  eight 
hour  day,  by  the  power  of  organized  capital  using  the  politi- 
cal and  judicial  functions  of  the  whole  people  in  tJie  interest 
of  profits  for  a  few,  what  must  be  the  inevitable  answer  of 
the  organized  workers?  And  when  organized  laborers  do  go 
into  politics,  will  it  be  from  desire,  or  from  the  necessity  to 
protect  their  lives  and  liberties  forced  upon  them  by  organ- 
ized  capital?     Organized   laborers   cannot   afford   competent 


TRADE  UNIONS  35 

lobbies  in  the  legislatures  nor  the  more  expensive  lawyers 
before  the  courts.  Neither  can  they  afford  the  time  for  long 
legal  battles.  While  organized  capital  may  wait  complacent- 
ly for  the  outcome  of  extended  legal  battles,  organized  la- 
borers will  starve. 

By  the  methods  which  I  have  set  forth,  organized  capital 
has  for  the  last  ten  years  made  a  systematic  and  sustained 
attack  upon  the  wages  and  working  conditions  of  the  la- 
borers of  this  country.  The  nature  of  this  attack,  using  as  it 
does  all  the  forms  of  law,  and  covered  as  it  has  been  by  a 
very  skillful  censorship  of  the  press — for  organized  capital  is 
the  great  advertiser  as  well  as  the  great  employer — caused 
many  thoughtful  men  of  labor  and  many  other  men  and 
women  interested  in  the  social  welfare  of  our  people  indepen- 
dent of  any  personal  association  with  organized  laborers,  to 
fear  that  it  might  operate  to  change  the  form  of  labor  organ- 
izations in  this  country.  I  say,  'change  the  form  of  labor 
organizations,'  for  it  is  at  once  utterly  ignorant  and  childish 
to  speak  of  destroying  the  organization  of  labor.  It  is  pos- 
sible to  force  great  social  currents  into  new  channels — some- 
times subterranean  and  dangerous  to  the  ancient  foundations 
of  social  order — but  it  is  impossible  permanently  to  dam  up 
the  waters  of  progress  in  the  modern  world. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  industrial  struggle  in  this 
country  when  out  of  the  clear,  as  it  were,  there  came  down 
from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  the  3d  of 
last  February  a  decision  in  the  case  of  Loewe  vs.  Lawlor, 
known  throughout  the  industrial  world  today  as  the  'Dan- 
bury  hatters'  case.'  This  decision  sustained  the  general  doc- 
trine which  the  organized  capital  of  the  country  has  sought 
to  establish,  to  the  end  that  any  really  effective  action  by 
the  organized  laborers  of  the  country  in  combination  to  pro- 
mote the  welfare  of  the  workers,  is  in  the  nature  of  a  con- 
spiracy against  property  rights  and  a  violation  of  the  pro- 
hibition in  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law  against  combinations 
in  restraint  of  trade.  For  the  purposes  of  the  penal  provi- 
sions of  this  statute  a  trade  union  is  a  trust.  Perhaps  the 
union  men  here  present  did  not  know  that  they  were  trust 
magnates,  and  that  President  Gompers  is  the  greatest  trust 
magnate  in  the  United  States. 


36  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Thus  a  law  passed  nineteen  years  ago  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  the  people  from  the  trust  control  of  commodities, 
while  powerless  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  passed,  has 
become  at  last  a  deadly  weapon  in  the  hands  of  these  same 
trusts  for  breaking  up  the  organizations  of  laborers  in  the 
interstate  trades.  Its  gums  are  toothless  when  it  bites  on  oil 
combines,  railroad  combines  or  steel  combines  seeking  profit 
of  millions  a  year,  but  its  teeth  are  sharp  and  cut  deep  into 
the  life  arteries  of  labor  organizations  seeking  to  protect 
human  values  for  the  individual  laborers  of  the  country. 
This  decision  found  that  the  United  Hatters  of  North  Amer- 
ica, one  of  the  oldest  organizations  of  laborers  in  the  world, 
when  seeking  to  bring  all  hat  factories  under  the  trade 
agreement  and  union  shop  conditions  was  a  conspiracy,  and 
that  when  they  told  each  other  through  their  trade  journal 
that  Mr.  Loewe  was  making  hats  under  anti-social  and  im- 
fair  conditions,  and  for  the  welfare  of  their  brother  and  sis- 
ter workers  they  should  not  wear  Loewe's  hats,  that  such 
publication  was  a  combination  in  restraint  of  trade.  Under 
this  decision  Loewe  may  collect  triple  damages  against  the 
union  or  against  the  individual  members  of  the  union,  wheth- 
er they  participated  in  the  strike,  whether  they  knew  of  the 
publication  of  the  'unfair'  notice  or  not.  This  decision  is 
chiefly  remarkable  for  its  extraordinary  finding  in  the  fol- 
lowing language  of  the  chief  justice,  who  said  in  delivering 
the  opinion  of  the  court: 

That  the  conspiracy  or  combination  was  so  far  progressed  that 
out  of  eighty-two  manufacturers  of  this  country  engaged  in  the 
production  of  fur  hats,  seventy  had  accepted  the  terms  and  ac- 
ceded to  the  demand  that  the  shop  should  be  conducted  In  accord- 
ance, so  far  as  conditions  of  employment  are  concerned,  with  the 
will  of  the  American  Federation  of  I^abor. 

Thus  in  conflict  with  the  whole  trend  of  modern  opinion 
upon  both  social  gains  and  industrial  peace,  the  Supreme 
Court  finds  tliat  the  fact  of  a  trade  agreement  in  seventy 
out  of  a  possible  eighty-two  factories  is  material  evidence  of 
a  conspiracy  in  restraint  of  trade.  Passing  over  the  ignor- 
ance of  the  court  regarding  trade  agreements  manifest  in  its 
suggestion  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  ever 
made  any  shop  requirements  for  any  trade,  it  is  clear  that 
the  court  holds  a  point  of  view  regarding  the  social  aspect 
of  organizations  among  laborers,  which  is  a  survival  of  the 


TRADE  UNIONS  37 

individualist  system  of  production,  a  system  that  has  been 
dead  all  over  western  civilization  for  a  generation.  Fair- 
minded  employers  have  given  convincing  testimony  to  the 
value  of  trade  agreements  between  organized  laborers  and 
themselves,  not  only  in  maintaining  industrial  peace,  but  in 
preventing  the  baneful  competition  of  sweatshop  products 
with  goods  made  under  fair  working  conditions.  Government 
officials,  national  and  state,  have  borne  witness  to  the  benef- 
icent power  of  organized  laborers  in  aiding  the  enforcement 
of  school,  facfory,  sanitary  and  health  regulations.  Enlight- 
ened ministers  of  the  Gospel  and  teachers  of  morals  have 
testified  to  the  inherent  strength  of  the  union  among  laborers 
in  strengthening  and  defending  the  morality  of  the  individ- 
uals within  the  organization.  Upon  this  high  consideration 
for  the  social,  welfare,  let  me  submit  a  case  in  point,  that 
will  illustrate  the  moral  significance  of  this  very  organiza- 
tion that  the  Supreme  Court  has  found  to  be  'a  conspiracy  in 
restraint  of  trade.' 

In  a  city  on  the  Atlantic  coast  are  two  hat  factories  with- 
in two  blocks  of  each  other.  In  one  of  these  factories  the 
girls  in  the  trimming  department  are  organized  as  a  local 
of  the  United  Hatters  of  North  America.  In  the  other  fac- 
tory the  girls  in  the  trimming  department  are  not  organized. 
A  little  over  a  year  ago  the  foreman  of  the  floor  where  the 
trimmers  work  in  the  unorganized  factory  insulted  one  of 
the  girl  trimmers.  She  stood  her  ground  and  told  him  in 
plain  language  what  she  thought  of  him.  She  was  discharged 
for  insubordination. "  This  girl  wrote  to  the  owner  of  the  fac- 
tory and  had  a  registry  receipt  purporting  to  be  signed  by 
him.  She  never  received  any  reply,  and  was  out  of  work 
for  some  weeks.  Some  months  after  this  incident  a  similar 
insult  was  oflFered  to  a  girl  by  the  foreman  on  the  trimming 
floor  of  the  organized  factory.  The  girl  who  was  'shop  wom- 
an' on  that  floor  for  the  United  Hatters  of  North  America 
went  to  this  foreman  and  said,  'You  cut  that  out.  We 
won't  stand  for  anything  like  that  in  this  shop.'  He  replied, 
'You  go  to  h — 1!  What  have  you  got  to  do  with  it  anyhow?' 
She  answered,  'I've  got  a  whole  lot  to  do  with  it,  and  if  you 
•don't  go  to  that  little  girl  and  apologize  I  will  call  a  shop 


38  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

meeting  right  now.'  He  repied,  'If  you  do,  I'll  lire  you.' 
She  said,  'No  you  won't  either!' 

Then  this  little  woman  who  is  less  than  five  feet  tall, 
'called  shop,'  and  170  odd  girls  laid  down  their  work.  She 
told  the  girls  what  the  trouble  was,  and  they  agreed  that 
they  would  starve  before  they  would  go  back  to  work  if  the 
foreman  didn't  apologize  to  the  little  foreign  girl  he  had  in- 
sulted. Here  the  ger^,eral  superintendent  came  into  the  con- 
troversy, and  after  a  conference  in  the  office  the  foreman 
was  discharged,  and  that  little  woman  is  still  shop  woman  on 
that  trimming  floor,  and  there  isn't  any  foreman  in  that 
factory  who  thinks  he  can  insult  a  girl  while  she  is  at  work 
just  because  she  is  a  foreigner  and  poor.  Now  I  submit  that 
the  organization  of  laborers  known  as  the  United  Hatters  of 
North  America  had  more  power  on  that  trimming  floor,  not 
only  to  preserve  fair  wages  and  hours,  but  to' preserve  indi- 
vidual virtue  and  the  hope  and  fidelity  of  the  home  for  poor 
and  sorely  tempted  working  girls,  than  all  the  churches  and 
universities  within  the  limits  of  that  city.  Yet  this  is  the 
organization  that,  in  extending  its  benefits  to  other  workers 
in  other  factories,  is  condemned  as  'a  conspiracy  in  restraint 
of  trade!' 

This  decision  awakened  the  leaders  of  organized  labor 
from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other.  Here  was  judicial 
recognition  of  an  industrial  war  doctrine  of  organized  capi- 
tal that,  if  maintained  and  established  would  outlaw  all  eflfec- 
tive  organization  among  the  laborers  of  this  country,  and 
operate  to  make  unfair  working  conditions  national  in  the 
United  States.  The  Executive  Council  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  called  a  conference  at  the  City  of  Wash- 
ington to  consider  the  effects  of  the  decision  and  to  plan 
the  wisest  action  for  the  organized  laborers  of  the  United 
States.  It  met  on  the  i8th  day  of  March,  and  was  the  larg- 
est gathering  of  representative  labor  men  ever  assembled  in 
this  country  except  at  a  national  convention  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  What  did  they  do?  Did  they  resolve 
to  go  into  politics  in  behalf  of  the  Democratic  Party?  They 
did  not  resolve  that  way,  and  what  is  more  to  the  point,  they 
did  not  act  that  way.  Among  the  men  there  present  were 
Republicans,  Democrats,  Hearstites,  Socialists  and  Independ- 


TRADE  UNIONS  39 

ents.  They  decided  on  a  policy.  What  was  this  revolution- 
ary policy?  It  was  first  to  go  before  the  proper  committees 
of  Congress  and  advocate  an  amendment  to  the  Sherman 
anti-trust  law.  It  was  to  appeal  to  the  same  authority  that 
had  passed  the  law  nineteen  years  before  and  say:  'On  the 
record  of  the  discussions  upon  this  act  it  appears  that  this 
law  was  passed  to  curb  the  greed  of  the  great  trusts  that 
were  seeking  to  control  the  commodities  necessary  to  the  life 
of  the  people.  This  law  has  been  now  so  interpreted,  that 
while  powerless  for  its  original  purpose,  it  can  be  made  most 
injurious  to  the  welfare  of  the  organized  laborers  of  the 
country,  and  we  ask  you  to  amend  it  so  that  it  shall  conform 
to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  enacted  into  law.'  •  If  Con- 
gress should  amend  the  act,  then  the  matter  was  at  an  end; 
if  Congress  should  fail  or  refuse,  then  each  political  party 
convention  was  to  be  urged  to  adopt  a  plank  in  its  platform 
favoring  these  demands,  and  the  party  and  candidates  that 
should  comply  were  to  be  supported  at  the  polls  by  the  rec- 
ommendations of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  This 
plan  was  carried  out  to  the  letter. 

Was  this  a  revolutionary  or  unreasonable  policy  for  free 
men  in  a'  free  country?  A  memorial  of  these  demands  was 
submitted  to  Congress.  The  President  of  the  United  States 
sent  a  special  message  to  Congress  recommending  an  amend- 
ment of  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law.  The  memorial  and  the 
message  of  the  President  were  buried  in  committees,  and 
the  proposals  were  never  permitted  to  reach  discussion  on 
the  floor  of  the  House.  This  Congress  was  largely  Republi- 
can in  membership.  The  responsible  leaders  in  the  House 
stated  with  cynical  indiflference  that  they  were  responsible  for 
the  measures  that  were  passed  and  for  the  measures  that 
were  not  passed.  Still  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
took  no  partisan  stand.  They  hoped  that  the  party  of  Lin- 
coln, when  assembled  in  national  convention,  would  consider 
favorably  the  well-being  of  the  organized  laborers  of  the 
country  and  would  adopt  a  plank  in  the  national  platform 
promising  the  needed  relief.  Mr.  Gompers  appeared  before 
the  resolutions  committee  of  the  Republican  convention  and 
advocated  the  adoption  of  provisions  set  forth  in  a  proposed 
plank.     These  provisions  in  every  substantial  particular  were 


40  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

rejected  by  the  resolutions  committee  of  the  Republican  con- 
vention, and  their  report  was  adopted  by  the  convention. 
Mr.  Gompers  then  went  before  the  resolutions  committee  of 
the  Democratic  convention  in  Denver,  and  in  all  substan- 
tial particulars  the  provisions  rejected  by  the  Republican 
convention  were  adopted  by  the  Democratic  convention. 
The  Democratic  platform  and  all  candidates  who  agreed  to 
abide  by  its  provisions  were  recommended  for  election  by 
the  people  by  the  executive  council  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor. 

Now  I  shall  assume  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  show 
that  the  result  of  the  recent  national  election  has  small  im- 
portance in  determining  the  outcome  of  the  industrial  strug- 
gle in  this  country.  The  futile  and  stupid  claims  of  those 
critics  who  suggest  that  organized  laborers  have  entered 
politics,  have  been  defeated  and  that  the  contest  is  over,  de- 
serve no  consideration  before  this  audience,  I  am  sure.  It 
is  well  to  remember,  however,  that  industrial  organization 
among  the  laborers  of  this  country  has  been  in  process  for 
over  a  century,  and  that  industrial  organization  is  not 
yet  complete.  No  intelligent  person  had  any  expectation 
that  party  ties  and  the  great  lines  of  political  division  in  na- 
tional politics  could  be  wiped  out  by  an  industrial  issue  in  a 
six  months'  campaign.  It  is  true,  however,  that  in  certain 
states  there  was  an  extraordinary  change  in  the  votes  of  the 
organized  laborers.  This  is  common  knowledge  to  those 
who  look  behind  the  headlines  and  analyze  the  actual  re- 
turns. It  is  also  true  that  the  industrial  issue  in  the  last 
campaign  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  induce  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  to  make  the  welfare  of  organized 
laborers  a  leading  subject  in  his  campaign  letters,  and  to 
induce  the  candidates  for  president  of  both  great  parties  to 
finish  their  campaign  speaking  with  the  'labor  issue'  as  the 
central  theme.  President-elect  Taft  went  so  far  as  to  pro- 
claim himself  a  better  friend  of  organized  laborers  than  was 
President  Gompers  himself.  He  will  have  ample  oppor- 
tunity to  establish  his  claims  in  this  particular  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  laborers  who  voted  for  him  before  the  next 
presidential  election. 

Within  a  few  days  after  this  election  the  national  con- 


TRADE  UNIONS  41 

vcntion  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  convened 
in  the  City  of  Denver.  President  Gompers  submitted  a  re- 
port as  national  executive  officer  of  the  organized  laborer^  of 
the  United  States  vi^hich  had  been  prepared  before  the  result 
of  the  campaign  was  known.  Nothing  could  better  indicate 
the  non-partisan  and  enduring  quality  of  the  industrial  policy 
of  organized  laborers  than  the  fact  that  this  report  with  its 
recommendations  written  before  the  election,  should  have 
been  adopted  unanimously  without  the  change  of  a  word  in 
a  great  national  convention  of  laborers,  after  the  results  of 
that  election  had  passed  into  history.  I  quote  the  following 
extracts  from  this  report  as  the  most  illuminating  as  well  as 
authoritative  statement  upon  the  subjects  discussed: 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Hatters'  case  in- 
volves every  wage  worker  of  our  country,  men  and  women,  white 
or  black,  who  associate  themselves  permanently  or  temporarily  to 
protect   or  advance   their  human   rights. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  life-long  environment  of 
men  may  pervert  their  judgment,  and  that  the  environment  of 
the  respected  gentlemen  who  compose  the  Supreme  bench  has  been 
such  that  they,  have  not  been  brought  into  practical  and  personal 
contact  with  industrial  problems;  that,  on  the  contrary,  their  as- 
sociations have  largely  been  with  business  and  financial  men; 
that  naturally  a  man  absorbs  most  of  his  point  of  view  from  his 
environment;  that  it  is,  therefore,  quite  understandable  that  the 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  should  have  little  knowledge  of 
modern  industrial  conditions,  and  less  sympathy  with  the  efforts 
of  the  wage  workers  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  marvelous  revolu- 
tion which  has  taken  place  in  industry  in  the  past  quarter  of  a 
century. 

The  ownership  of  a  free  man  Is  vested  in  himself  alone.  The 
only  reason  for  the  ownership  of  bondmen  or  slaves  is  the  own- 
ership of  their  labor  power  by  their  masters.  Therefore  it  follows 
that  if  free  men's  ownership  of  themselves  involves  tlieir  labor 
power,  none  but  themselves  are  owners  of  their  labor  power.  If 
a  free  man  by  choice  or  by  reason  of  his  environment  sells  his  la- 
bor power  to  another  and  is  paid  a  wage  in  return  tlierefor,  this 
wage  is  his  own.  This  proposition  is  so  essentially  true  that  it 
Is  the  underlying  idea  upon  which  is  based  the  entire  structure  of 
private  property.  To  question  or  to  attempt  to  destoy  the  princi- 
ple  enunciated  involves  the   entire   structure   of   civilized  society. 

The  free  man's  ownership  of  himself  and  his  labor  power  im- 
plies that  he  may  sell  it  to  another  or  withhold  it;  that  he  may  with 
others  similarly  situated  sell  their  labor  power  or  withhold  it;  that 
no  man  has  even  an  Implied  property  right  In  the  labor  of  another; 
that  free  men  may  sell  their  labor  power  under  stress  of  their 
needs,  or  they  may  withhold  it  to  obtain  more  advantageous  re- 
turns. Any  legislation  or  court  construction  dealing  with  the 
subject  of  organizations,  corporations  or  trusts  which  curtail  or 
corner  the  products  of  labor  can  have  no  true  application  to  the 
association  of  free  men'  In  the  disposition  or  withholding  of  their 
labor  power. 

The  attempt  to  deny  to  free  men.  by  injunction  or  other  proc- 
ess, the  right  of  association,  the  right  to  withhold  their  labor 
power  or  to  induce  others  to  withhold  their  labor  power,  whether 
^these  men  be  engaged  in  an  industrial  dispute' with  employers,  or 


42  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

whether  they  be  other  workmen  who  have  taken  the  places  ot 
those  engaged  in  the  original  dispute,  is  an  invasion  of  man's 
ownership  of  himself  and  of  his  labor  power,  and  Is  a  claim  of 
some  form  of  property  right  in  the  workmen  who  have  tal^en  the 
places  of  strikers  or  men  locked  out. 

If  the  ownership  of  free  men  is  vested  in  them  and  in  them 
alone,  they  have  not  only  the  right  to  withhold  their  labor  power, 
but  to  induce  others  to  make  common  cause  with  them,  and  to 
withhold  theirs  that  the  greatest  advantage  may  accrue  to  all.  It 
further  follows  that  if  free  men  may  avail  themselves  of  the  law- 
ful right  of  withholding  their  labor  power,  they  have  the  right  to 
do  all  lawful  things  in  pursuit  of  that  lawful  purpose.  And  neith- 
er court  injunctions  nor  other  processes  have  any  proper  applica- 
tion to  deny  to  free  men  these  lawful,  constitutional,  natural  and 
inherent   rights. 

In  the  disposition  of  the  wages  returned  from  the  sale  of  labor 
power,  man  is  also  his  own  free  agent.  He  may  purchase  from 
whomsoever  he  will,  or  he  may  give  his  patronage  to  another. 
What  he  may  do  with  his  wages  in  the  form  of  bestowing  or  with- 
holding his  patronage,  he  may  lawfully  agree  with  others  to  do. 

No  corporation  or  company  has  a  vested  interest  in  the  pat- 
ronage of  a  free  man.  Free  men  may  bestow  their  patronage 
upon  any  one  or  withhold  it,  or  bestow  It  upon  another.  And  this, 
too,  whether  in  the  first  Instance  the  business  concern  is  hostile 
or  friendly. 

To  claim  that  what  one  man  may  lawfully  do  when  done  by 
two  or  more  men  becomes  unlawful  or  criminal,  Is  equal  to  as- 
serting that  nought  and  nought  makes  two. 

•»  *  ♦  ♦  «  «      . 

Injunctions  as  issued  against  workmen  are  never  applied  to, 
or  issued  against,  any  other  citizen  of  our  country.  These  in- 
junctions are  an  attempt  to  deprive  citizens  of  our  country,  when 
they  are  workmen,  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  They  are  an 
effort  to  fasten  an  offense  upon  workmen  who  are  Innocent  of 
any  illegal  act.  They  are  issued  in  trade  disputes  to  make  out- 
laws of  men  who  are  not  even  charged  with  doing  things  in  viola- 
tion of  any  law  of  state  or  nation.  These  Injunctions  issued  in 
labor  disputes  are  an  indirect  assertion  of  a  property  right  in 
men,  when  these  men  are  workmen  engaged  in  a  legitimate  effort 
to  protect   or   to  advance   their   natural   rights   and   Interests. 

The  writ  of  injunction,  beneficent  in  Its  original  purpose.,  has 
been  perverted  from  the  protection  of  property  and  property 
rights,  and  extended  to  the  invasion  of  personal  rights  and  human 
freedom. 

It  is  an  exhibition  of  crass  ignorance  for  any  one  to  assert 
that  we  seek  to  abolish  the  writ  of  injunction.  The  fundamental 
principles  upon  which  injunctions  may  rightfully  be  issued  are 
tor   the    protection   of  property  and   property   rights   only. 

He  who  seeks  the  aid  of  an  injunction  must  come  into  court 
with  clean  hands.     There  must  be   no  other  adequate  remedy  at 

The  Injunction  must  never  be  used  to  curtail  or  invade  per- 
sonal rights. 

It  must  never  be  used  in  an  effort  to  punish  crime.  It  must 
never  be  used  as  a   means  to  set  aside  trial  by  jury. 

Yet  injunctions  a.s  issued  against  workmen  are  used  for  all 
these  purposes,  and  are  never  used  or  issued  against  any  other 
citizen  of  our  country  for  such  purposes,  and  not  even  against 
workmen  unless  they  are  engaged  in  a  labor  dispute.  Such  in- 
junctions have  no  warrant  in  law,  and  are  the  result  of  judicial 
usurpation  and  judicial  legislation,  which  usurp  the  place  of  con- 
gressional legislation  and  are  repugnant  to  constitutional  guaran- 
tees. 


TRADE  UNIONS  43 

Here  we  have  the  political  and  legal  policies  of  tHe  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor.  Upon  examination  they  will  ap- 
pear a  necessary  resistance  to  the  efforts  toward  the  indus- 
trial servitude  of  laborers  as  sought  by  organized  capital  and 
the  natural  extension  of  human  rights  under  the  development 
of  our  industrial  democracy. 

Since  this  report  was  adopted,  there  has  been  another 
decision  of  national  importance  in  this  controversy.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia  upon  a  motion 
alleging  contempt,  and  charging  the  violation  of  a  writ  of 
injunction  granted  in  the  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  case,  has 
sentenced  President  Samuel  Gompers,  Vice  President  John 
Mitchell,  and  Secretary  Frank  Morrison  to  prison.  The 
original  writ  of  injunction  in  this  case  forbade  Gompers, 
Mitchell  and  Morrison  among  many  other  things: 

•  *  *  From  Interfering  in  any  manner  with  the  sale  of  the 
product  of  the  complainant's  factory  or  business  by  defendants, 
or   by   any   other   person,    firm    or   corporation. 

•  *  *  From  publishing,  or  otherwise  circulating,  whether  in 
writing,  or  orally,  any  statement,  or  notice,  of  any  kind  or  char- 
acter whatsoever,  calling  attention  of  the  complainant's  customers, 
or  of  dealers  or  tradesmen,  or  the  public,  to  any  boycott  against 
the  complainant,  its  business  or  its  product,  or  that  the  same 
are,  or  were,  or  have  been  declared  to  be  "unfair,"  or  that  it 
should  not  be  purchased  or  dealt  in  or  handled  by  any  dealer, 
tradesman,  or  other  person  whomsoever,  or  by  the  public,  or  any 
representation  or  statement  of  like  effect  or  import,  for  the  pur- 
pose of,  or  tending  to  any  injury  to  or  interference  with  the  com- 
plainant's business  or  with  the  free  and  unrestricted  sale  of  Its 
product. 

•  •  *  From  printing,  issuing,  publishing  or  distributing  through 
the  mails,  or  in  any  other  manner  any  copy  or  copies  of  the 
American  Federationist,  or  any  other  printed  or  written  news- 
papers, magazine,  circular,  letter,  or  other  document  or  instru- 
ment whatsoever,  which  shall  contain  or  in  any  manner  refer  to 
the  name  of  the  complainant,  its  business  or  its  product  in  the 
"We  Don't  Patronize,"  or  the  "Unfair"  list  of  the  defendants,  or 
any  of  them,  their  agents,  servants,  attorneys,  confederates,  or 
other  person  or  persons  acting  in  aid  of  or  in  conjunction  with 
them,  or  which  contains  any  reference  to  the  complainant,  its 
business  or  product  in  connection  with  the  term  "unfair"  or  with 
the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list,  or  with  any  other  phrase,  word 
or  words  of  similar  import. 

In  discussing  the  matter  of  this  alleged  contempt,  the 
counsel  for  the  defendants,  Judge  Alton  B.  Parker,  for  many 
years  chief  justice  of  the  highest  court  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  in  argument  in  open  court  said  as  follows: 

But  it  was  not  so  much  this  particular  holding  that  seemed 
to  labor  a  most  serious  injury,  although  of  course  its  purpose 
was  to.  contest  that  in  the  courts;  it  was  a  feature  of  the  order 
which   was   not   discussed    in    the    opinion    which   aroused    the    in- 


44  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

dignation,  'and,   I   may  say,   just  indignation,   in  my  judgment,   of 
the   labor   leaders   throughout   the   country. 

I  am  here  to  say  that  I  believe  that  if  the  question  had  ever 
been  presented  to  the  Judge,  that  particular  feature  of  the  order, 
and  discussed  before  the  judge,  I  believe  it  never  would  have 
been  entered,  and  it  will  be  my  contention  here  today  in  part 
that  so  much  of  the  order — if  that  is  the  meaning  of  it — and  I 
am  afraid  it  is — that  so  much  of  the  order  as  lays  upon  any  one, 
Mt.  Gompers  or  any  one  else,  a  command  that  they  shall  not 
discuss  that  decision,  that  there  shall  be  no  longer  freedom  of 
speech,  that  they  shall  not  tell  their  organizations  about  it, 
about  what  has  happened  and  what  the  court  has  decided,  prac- 
tically that  they  shall  not  go  to  Congress  and  ask  for  legislation 
relieving  them  from  what  they  regard  as  an  improper  law,  that 
they  shall  not  write  editorials  about  it,  I  shall  contend  before 
your  honor  before  I  finish  that  that  part  of  the  order  is  abso- 
lutely void.  It  offends  against  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  that  section  of  the  constitution  which  attempts  to  prevent 
the  abridgment  of  the  liberty  of  the  press  and  of  free  speech. 
If  an  act  of  Congress  attempted  to  establish  by  statute  the  re- 
sult which  has  been  attempted  here  by  order  and  the  question 
were  presented  to  the  court,  the  court  would  say,  you  need  pay 
no  attention  to  It,  it  Is  wholly  void;  and  so  a  decree  of  court 
which  offends  against  the  constitution  is  likewise  wholly  void, 
and  need  not  be  obeyed,  for  when  the  question  of  Its  enforcement 
comes  up  It  would  be  precisely  the  same  thing  as  an  attempt  to 
enforce  a  law  of  Congress  which  was  declared  unconstitutional, 
and  both  would  be  void.  Each  represents  separate  and  distinct 
departments  of  the  government,  and  neither  has  any  power  not 
conferred  by  the  constitution,  or  as  against  the  rights  given  by 
the  constitution. 

In  his  report  as  president  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  submitted  and  adopted  at  the  last  national  conven- 
tion in  Denver,  referring  to  this  case  in  the  matter  of  the 
original  writ  of  injunction,  Mr.  Gompers  said: 

If  all  the  provisions  of  the  Injunction  are  to  be  fully  carried 
out,  we  shall  not  only  be  prohibited  from  giving  or  selling  a  copy 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Norfolk  convention  of  the  American 
Federation  of  I^abor,  either  a  bound  or  unbound  copy,  or  any 
copy  of  the  American  Fcderationist  for  the  greater  part  of  1907, 
and  part  of  IHOS,  either  bound  or  unbound,  but  we,  as  an  execu- 
tive council,  will  not  be  permitted  to  make  a  report  upon  this 
subject  to  the  Denver  convention. 

It  is  impossible  to  see  how  we  can  comply  fully  with  the 
court's  injunction.  Shall  we  be  denied  the  right  of  free  speech 
and  free  press  simply  because  we  are  workmen?  Is  It  thinkable 
that  we  shall  be  compelled  to  suppress,  refuse  to  distribute  and 
kill  for  all  time  to  come  the  official  transactions  of  one  of  the 
great  conventions  of  our  Federation? 

Now  it  is  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  Amer- 
icon  FcdcrationUt  which  are  enjoined  from  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  free  speech  and  the  liberty  of  the  press.  In  the  future 
it  may  be  another  publication,  and  this  Injunction  will  then  be 
quoted  as  a  sacred  precedent  for  future  and  further  encroach- 
ments upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of  our  people.  The  conten- 
tion of  labor  with  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Co.  sinks  into 
comparative  insignificance  contrasted  with  the  great  principles 
which  are  at  stake.  Is  it  imaginable  that  inasmuch  as  the  con- 
stitution of  our  country  guarantees  to  every  citizen  the  r^ht  of 
free  speech   and  free  press,  and  forbids  the  Congress  of  our  gov- 


TRADE  UNIONS  45 

ernment  from  enacting  any  law  that  shall  in  any  way  abridge, 
invade  or  deny  the  liberty  of  speech  and  the  freedom  of  press, 
that  a  court  by  the  issuance  of  an  injunction  can  invade  and 
deny  these  rights? 

There  is  no  disrespect  on  my  part  to  the  judge  or  the  court 
when  with  solemn  conviction  I  assert  that  this  invasion  is  un- 
warranted. The  wrong  has  grown  from  the  precedent  set  by 
previous  injunction  abuses,  and  the  judge  in  this  instance  has 
but  extended  the  process.  The  suppression  of  freedom  of  the 
press  is  a  most  serious  undertaking,  whether  in  autocratic  Russia 
or  in  tlie  republic  of  the  United  States.  It  is  because  the  present 
injunction  and  the  contempt  proceedings  thereunder  suppress  free 
speech  and  free  press  that  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  enter  a  most  em- 
phatic   protest. 

For  Uges  it  has  been  a  recognized  and  an  established  principle 
that  the  publisher  shall  be  uncensored  in  what  he  publishes, 
though  he  may  be  held  personally  and  criminally  liable  for  what 
he  utters.  If  what  is  published  is  wrong,  or  false,  or  seditious, 
or  treasonable,  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  courts  to  punish 
him  by  applying  the  ordinary  process  of  law.  If  what  is  pub- 
lished is  libelous,  the  civil  and  criminal  laws  may  be  invoked. 
The  right  to  freely  print  and  speak  has  grown  up  through  cen- 
turies of  freedom.  It  has  its  basis  in  the  fundamental  guarantees 
of  human  liberty.  It  has  been  advocated  and  upheld  by  the 
ablest  minds.  Tremendous  sacrifices  have  been  made  in  its  es- 
tablishment. These  rights  must  not,  cannot  and  will  not  be  com- 
placently surrendered — they  must  not  be  forbidden  by  a  court's 
injunction. 

Passing  over  the  many  other  unjudicial  characteristics  of 
the  opinion  of  the  court  sentencing  Gompers,  Mitchell,  and 
Morrison  to  jail  for  contempt  in  violating  this  injunction,  I 
quote  the  following  illegal  and  despotic  finding  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  Justice  -Wright,  who  in  delivering  this  sentence 
said: 

I  place  the  decision  of  the  matter  at  bar  distinctly  on  the 
proposition  that  were  the  order  confessedly  erroneous,  yet  it  must 
be  obeyed. 

Here  we  have  the  full  limit  of  judicial  usurpation  ex- 
pressly stated  and  upheld.  Should  this-  interpretation  of 
judicial  authority  be  finally  maintained,  constitutional  liberty 
will  have  ceased  to  exist  in  this  Republic. 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to  consider  independently 
this  matter  of  the  boycott.  Such  use  of  the  power  of  public 
opinion  has  rather  an  honorable  place  in  the  history  of  this 
Republic.  It  was  the  courageous  application  of  the  boycott 
that  precipitated  the  Revolution  of  1776.  Some  people  of 
Boston  would  not  use  tea  that  carried  a  stamp  which  was 
the  symbol  of  British  tyranny.  The  boycott  was  one  of 
the  weapons  of  the  great  anti-slavery  struggle,  and  was 
used  with  great  force  and  effect  against  the  slave  power  in 
the  United  States.     From  the  birth  of  this  nation  as  a  free 


46  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

people,  until  this  hour,  the  boycott  has  been  a  lirst  force  in 
our  civilization.  Shall  it  be  linally  denied  to  those  organiza- 
tions hghting  for  the  citizenship  values  of  human  labor  in 
the  industrial  processes  of  the  nation? 

Why  do  the  organized  'labor  skinners'  in  this  country 
hate  the  boycott  so  bitterly?  It  stops  the  sales  of  their  anti- 
social products!  It  makes  public  opinion  effective  and 
materializes  it  into  dollars  and  cents.  It  gets  the  public 
conscience  'on  the  job'  through  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
public.  Just  as  King  George  had  to  repeal  his  stamp  acts 
when  the  sales  of  British  tea  fell  ofT,  just  so  organized  cap- 
ital must  repeal  its  anti-union  edicts  when  the  products  of 
its  factories  are  refused  by  the  buying  public. 

Why  does  organized  capital  seek  the  extension  of  the  writ 
of  injunction  so  eagerly?  Because  it  evades  the  trial  by 
jury!  It  is  a  method  that  juggles  away  those  constitutional 
safeguards  put  about  every  citizen  before  he  shall  be  ad- 
judged a  criminal  in  every  other  process  known  to  our  courts. 
If  the  injunction  is  to  be  used  to  evade  regular  trials  at  law, 
the  right  of  cross-examination  of  witnesses  and  the  necessity 
of  a  verdict  by  a  jury,  and  thus  put  into  the  keeping  of  one 
man  the  rights  and  liberties  of  many  men,  such  a  far  reaching 
fact  is  worthy  of  the  very  highest  public  concern. 

The  industrial  struggle  to  thoughtful  men  and  women,  is 
the  struggle  of  this  generation.  This  is  an  industrial  age, 
and  we  are  an  industrial  people.  All  other  contests  are  side 
issues  as  it  were.  Morality,  intellect,  and  health  for  the 
individual;  politics,  religion,  education  for  the  community 
are  becoming  more  and  more  mere  aspects  of  this  supreme 
conflict.  Let  us  state  this  in  another  way.  To  a  young  man 
who  lives  in  a  West  Side  tenement  and  works  for  his  daily 
bread  as  a  common  laborer,  the  conditions  of  his  industrial 
relationship  are  more  powerful  than  all  other  influences  upon 
his  life.  Bad  ventilation  will  weaken  his  health,  long  hours 
will  dull  his  mind,  small  wages  will  keep  him  from  mar- 
riage, and  irregularity  of  employment  will  break  down  his 
morals.  Day  after  day  his  industrial  relationship  molds  his 
character  in  its  physical,  mental,  and  spiritual  aspects.  For 
him  fair  working  conditions  are  not  a  part  of  his  life,  they 
are  his  life,  itself,  in  all  its  substantial  elements.     There  are 


TRADE  UNIONS  47 

certain  trades  known  as  the  'tuberculosis  trades.'  In  certain 
others  the  worker  is  known  as  a  member  of  the  'poison 
squad.'  The  control  and  dominance  of  industry  is  the 
supreme  influence  of  our  age. 

Not  only  is  the  industrial  struggle  the  first  controversy  of 
the  age,  but  it  has  a  quality  that  no  other  controversy  has 
ever  possessed  in  an  equal  degree.  It  is  international.  Or- 
ganizations of  laborers  are  called  international  unions.  In- 
dustry is  not  only  the  big  term,  it  is  the  universal  term  in  the 
modern  world.  Language,  custom,  religions,  form  of  gov- 
ernment, and  social  groups  may  be  Focalized  and  independ- 
ent, but  the  industrial  order  covers  the  world.  When  oil 
is  found  in  Russia,  it  affects  prices  at  the  wells  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. Cotton  is  planted  in  India,  and  its  influence  reaches 
the  plantations  of  Carolina.  A  union  is  formed  in  China, 
and  the  shock  reaches  the  rice  lands  of  Florida.  Capital  is 
moving  upon  Mexico,  and  the  exploitation  of  the  peon  be- 
comes an  issue  in  the  labor  market  of  the  United  States. 

Surely  the  membership  of  the  City  Club  of  Chicago,  rep- 
resenting all  the  people  of  the  city,  and  as  genuinely  inter- 
ested in  the  real  prosperity  of  Chicago  as  any  other  group 
in  this  wonderful  city,  has  the  right  to  consider  all  the  as- 
pects of  this  great  controversy.  There  are  just  two  possible 
methods  of  dealing  with  our  responsibility  in  the  industrial 
struggle.  We  may  join  organized  capital  in  its  attack  upon 
organized  labor.  We  may  enter  into  the  conspiracy  of  the 
industrially  censored  press  and  join  in  the  hunt  for  dividends 
at  any  cost.  We  may  aid  in  withdrawing  from  laborers  the 
rights  of  other  men  and  make  them  an  outlawed  class  in 
their  group  associations  and  undertakings;  we  can  help  to 
enjoin  them  as  conspirators,  and  then  imprison  them  for 
exercising  the  legitimate  functions  of  other  persons  in  the 
community.  If  we  decide  on  this  method,  then  the  organ- 
ized laborers  will  be  driven  into  a  class  struggle  and  the 
Socialist  party  will  reap  the  harvest  of  the  bitter  contest 
between  confiscation  and  despotism. 

Some  years  ago  an  obscure  labor  leader  from  Indiana 
was  imprisoned  without  trial  in  the  'bull  pen'  at  Woodstock, 
111.  He  was  charged  with  many  crimes,  but  he  was  never 
brought  to  trial  for  any  of  his  alleged  offenses.     The  pur- 


48  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

pose  of  his  imprisonment  having  passed,  the  strike  broken, 
his  accusers  did  not  wish  to  risk  a  trial  by  due  process  of 
law.  That  obscure  labor  man  is  today  an  international  char- 
acter, better  known  and  better  loved  at  more  firesides  in 
England,  France,  and  Germany,  to  say  nothing  of  America, 
than  any  man  in  this  room  or  any  man  in  this  town  for  that 
matter.  He  has  twice  been  a  candidate  for  the  presidency 
of  the  United  States,  and  has  received  for  that  high  office 
nearly  half  a  million  votes — that  have  been  counted.  Within 
the  last  year  he  has  travelled  over  this  country  in  a  special 
train  from  California  to  Massachusetts.  Was  it  a  wise  social 
policy  that  made  Eugene  V.  Debs  a  hero  and  a  martyr  in 
the  thought  of  half  a  million  laborers  in  this  country?  As 
a  mere  method  of  attack  I  submit  that  by  its  fruits  this 
method  can  be  shown  to  be  false  and  costly,  regardless  of 
its  violations  of  the  fundamental  law.  I  submit  that  this 
half  million  will  grow  into  four  million  votes  within  a 
decade,  if  the  right  of  free  speech,  free  press  and  collective 
action  is  denied  the  working  men  in  industrial  disputes. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  will  be  without  excuse  if  we  per- 
mit our  common  life  to  suffer  a  class  cleavage  in  this  coun- 
try. Old  England  has  shown  us  a  more  excellent  way.  Or- 
ganized capital  in  that  country,  never  so  well  organized  nor 
so  impersonal  and  ruthless,  as  in  the  United  States,  began 
some  ten  years  ago  a  similar  campaign  to  that  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Manufacturers  in  this  country.  In 
1897  Allen  vs.  Flood  was  decided  by  the  law  Lords  in  the 
House  of  Peers.  This  decision  marked  the  beginning  of  an 
interpretation  in  the  highest  court  of  England  of  existing 
statutes  and  common  law  doctrines  in  behalf  of  organized 
capital  as  against  organized  laborers.  This  trend  in  legal 
decisions  was  steadily  maintained  until,  the  famous  TafF  Vale 
decision  rendered  on  the  22d  of  July,  1901.  In  other  deci- 
sions between  these  dates  you  will  find  all  the  doctrines  ad- 
vanced and  maintained  that  are  involved  in  our  labor-con- 
spiracy cases.  In  three  years  from  the  date  of  this  last 
decision,  a  great  political  industrial  movement  among  the 
organized  workers  of  Great  Britain  had  resulted  in  a  com- 
plete change  of  the  ministry  and  the  general  policy  of  the 
government  of  Great  Britain.    Within  a  year  from  this  time 


TRADE  UNIONS  49 

the  Parliament  of  England  passed  two  measures,  which,  if 
enacted  by  our  Congress  today  would  practically  remove  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  from  the  political  field  in 
the  United  States.  The  most  important  of  these  measures 
was  the  Trades  Dispute  Act,  a  copy  of  which  is  submitted 
for  your  consideration. 

In  the  last  analysis  this  government  rests  upon  the  peo- 
ple. Courts,  legislatures,  executives  get  their  legal  authority 
from  this  high  source.  When  we  appeal  from  legislators  and 
judges  and  presidents  back  to  the  people,  we  appeal  to  the 
hnal  court  of  last  resort  in  this  country.  Abraham  Lincoln 
appealed  to  that  court  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  was  over-ruled.  Charles  Sumner  and 
George  W.  Curtis  appealed  to  it  from  the  fugitive  slave  law 
enacted  by  a  Congress  under  the  domination  of  the  slave 
power,  and  that  law  was  over-ruled.  Mr.  Lincoln  in  discus- 
sing the  Dred  Scott  decision  declared  that  decision  to  be  'A 
portion  of  a  system  or  scheme  to  make  slavery  national  in 
this  country';  and  I  am  satisfied  that  the  decision  in  the 
Danbury  hatters'  case  is  a  part  of  a  system  or  scheme  to 
make  scab  labor  national  in  this  country. 

Slowly  this  great  question  is.  getting  a  hearing  in  our 
American  court  of  last  resort — the  conscience  of  the  people. 
We  have  considered  it  here  today,  and  other  groups  great 
and  small  will  consider  it  throughout  the  country,  and  at 
last  the  verdict  will  come  in.  That  this  verdict  will  be  at 
last  for  the  citizenship  values  of  the  many  rather  than  the 
profit  values  of  the  few,  who  can  doubt?  The  world  move- 
ment of  civilization  is  towards  human  rights.  No  man  or  set 
of  men  can  stand  permanently  in  the  way  of  this  current  in 
the  affairs  of  men.  Democracy  will  capture  industry  just 
as  it  has  captured  religion  and  politics.  Shall  we  enlist  with 
the  perishing  hosts  of  privilege  or  with  the  victorious  legions 
of  Democracy? 

Independent.  54:  1383-4.  June  5,  1902. 

Industrial  Unionism. 

The  action  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  in  calling  out 
the  engineers,  firemen  and  pumpmen  from  the  anthracite  col- 


50  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

lieries — and  the  prompt  obedience  to  the  order — is  a  note- 
worthy outcome  of  a  new  torm  of  labor  unions  which  the 
past  few  years  have  brought  forth.  The  stationary  engineers 
belong  to  a  skilled  occupation,  superior  to  that  of  the  miners, 
yet  in  this  particular  industry  they  have  yielded  their  sepa- 
rate trade  union  to  a  much  more  comprehensive  organiza- 
tion, the  "Industrial  Union."  The  Industrial  Union  indicates 
a  new  alignment  of  wage  earners  toward  the  new  organiza- 
tion of  capital  and  the  new  expansion  of  machinery.  Under 
the  older  forms  of  unionism  each  "trade"  was  assumed  to 
have  a  natural  boundary,  and  all  who  worked  at  that  trade, 
no  matter  how  widely  scattered  in  different  industries,  were 
supposed  to  have  a  common  interest  apart  from  that  of 
other  trades.  The  engineer  is  an  engineer,  whether  in  a 
mine,  a  brewery  or  a  machine  shop.  True,  the  Knights  of 
Labor,  from  which  many  of  the  existing  trade  unions  are 
offshoots,  attempted  to  break  down  trade  lines  and  to  con- 
solidate all  wage  earners  under  the  motto,  "An  injury  to  one 
is  an  injury  to  all."  But  the  Knights  of  Labor  went  to 
pieces  because  it  carried  the  principle  too  far,  and  tailors, 
for  example,  rebelled  when  their  strikes  were  settled  for 
them  by  bricklayers  and  teamsters. 

Now  the  "Indiistrial  Union"  is  a  partial  return  to  the 
principles  of  the  Knights  of  Labor.  But,  instead  of  amal- 
gamating all  employes,  it  brings  together  only  those  who 
work  in  the  same  industry.  This  coalescence  takes  different 
forms,  all  the  way^  from  amalgamation,  or  subordination, 
among  the  Mine  Workers  and  the  Printing  Trades,  to  a 
close  federation,  among  the  United  Garment  Workers,  the 
United  Hatters,  the  Brewery  Workmen,  the  Building  Trades 
and  others.  The  Typographical  Union  makes  contracts  for 
the  stcreotypers,  altho  it  has  not  as  yet  gained  control  of  the 
pressmen  or  photo*-engravers.  The  United  Garment  Work- 
ers in  New  York  conducted  last  summer,  for  the  first  time, 
a  general  strike  under  a  central  council  in  which  ten  or 
twelve  unions  took  part,  covering  the  entire  clothing  industry 
except  the  Italian  women  who  worked  at  home. 

This  new  form  of  alliance  preserves  a  certain  varying  de- 
gree of  autonomy  for  the  several  trades,  but  it  prevents  one 
trade  from  stopping  an  industry  >Yithout  the  consent  of  the 


TRADE  UNIONS  51 

other  trades.  The  firemen  in  the  anthracite  mines,  some 
six  months  ago,  attempted  to  break  loose  from  the  Mine 
Workers  and  to  secure  a  reduction  of  hours  from  twelve  to 
eight  by  independent  action,  but  the  Mine  Workers  threat- 
ened to  supply  their  places  and  thus  forced  them  back  to 
work.  Now  the  firemen  are  joining  with  the  Mine  Workers, 
who,  since  their  contract  with  the  operators  has  expired, 
have  taken  up  their  demand  along  with  their  own.  The 
stronger  and  more  compact  unions  of  skilled  workmen  resist 
this  movement  toward  coalition,  because  they  are  opposed 
to  making  sacrifices  for  their  weaker  associates;  but  in  pro- 
portion as  they  see  unskilled  man  with  machinery  taking 
their  places  they  are  awakening  to  the  need  of  protecting 
themselves  by  protecting  them. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor,  which,  because  it  was 
based  on  trade  lines,  displaced  the  Knights  of  Labor,  has 
suffered  internal  conflict  owing  to  this  advance  of  industrial 
unionism,  and  its  policy  has  not  been  consistent.  It  refused 
to  protect  the  engineers  when  the  Mine  Workers  proposed 
to  absorb  them,  but  latterly  it  has  protected  them  against 
the  Brewery  Workers.  By  a  close  vote  of  the  executive 
council  it  has  recognized  a  new  and  independent  organization 
in  the  Clothing  Trade.  It  has  on  its  hands  disputes  in  sev- 
eral other  industries.  These  problems  of  jurisdiction  are  the 
most  trying  and  dangerous  now  before  the  Federation.  At 
the  same  time  the  Federation  is  forced,  in  imitation  of  the 
trusts,  to  bring  all  workmen  in  an  industry  into  solid  array. 
It  has  now  organized  over  four  hundred  "Federal  Labor 
Unions," — unions  of  common  laborers  and  those  whose 
numbers  are  too  small  for  a  local  trade  union.  The  Federal 
Labor  Union  completes  in  theory  the  organization  of  an  in- 
dustry, and  in  at  least  two  industries — blast  furnaces  and 
paper  mills — these  federal  unions  have  become  strong  enough 
to  make  and  win  demands  apart  from  the  older  unions  of 
skilled  men.  Plainly  the  Federal  Labor  Union  is  a  long 
step  toward  industrial  unionism. 

The*  Mine  Workers'  organization  includes  every  employee 
who  works  "in  or  about  the  mines."  This  brings  under  one 
jurisdiction,  not  only  the  engineer,  but  the  skilled  miner  who 
works  by  contract  and  the  unskilled  laborer  who  loads  his 


52  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

cars.  Between  these  two  classes  there  is  almost  as  distinct 
a  line  of  aristocracy  as  between  engineers  and  Mine  Workers, 
and  in  the  anthracite  mines  apparently  this  line  has  not  been 
broken  down.  The  miner  works  four  or  five  hours  by  con- 
tract at  blasting  down  the  coal  and  hires  his  mine  laborer  for 
ten  hours  by  the  day,  like  any  employer,  to  load  his  cars. 
Where  the  Mine  Workers'  Union  is  stronger,  as  in  Illinois, 
this  species  of  sub-contracting  is  abolished,  and  the  miner 
and  mine  laborer  are  partners  for  eight  hours  a  day,  and 
they  divide  their  earnings  equally.  Other  mine  workers  have 
varying  wages  according  to  skill  and  strength. 

The  Industrial  Union,  from  the  fact  that  it  subordinates 
the  skilled  workman  to  an  organization  with  often  a  major- 
ity of  unskilled  workmen,  tends  toward  democracy  within 
the  union.  It  levels  up  the  unskilled  men,  but  it  protects 
the  skilled  men  against  their  competition. 

New  York.  Labor,  Department  of.  Bulletin.  392-410.  Septem- 
ber, 1909. 

International  Trade  Union  Statistics. 

In  the  following  pages  appear  the  latest  statistics  avail- 
able concerning  trade  unions  in  the  principal  countries  of 
the  world.  The  standing  of  the  several  countries  for  which 
any  figures  arc  available,  as  to  trade  union  membership,  is  as 

follows: 

Countrj'.                Date.  Source   of         Aggregate 
Information,     membership 

United  States  and  Canada  1908  Estimated     2,500,000 

Great    Britain    and    Ireland    Jan.  1,  1908  Government    2,406,746 

Germany     (Av'ge)  1908  Unions   2,382,401 

France    Jan.  1.  1908  Government    957,102 

Austria    190S  Unions   482,274 

New   York    '. March,  1909  Government    367,093 

Russia    1907  Unions     246,272 

Sweden     1907  Unions   186.226 

Belgium  1907  Unions   181,015 

Australia     1907  Government    130.320 

HunKary     1907  Unions     130,lff2 

Switzerland     1P08  Unions   li;9,319 

Denmark     1907  Unions     •      90,806 

Netherlands     Jan.  1,  1909  Unions   57.971 

Norway    1907  Unions   39,070 

Spain     March.  1908  Unions  32,612 

New    Zealand     1908  Government    27,640 

Finland     1907  Unions  25,197 

Bulgaria    1907  Unions    10,000 


TRADE  UNIONS  53 

The  figures  for  the  United  States  and  Canada  are  crudely 
estimated.  The  figures  for  Belgium,  Denmark,  Norway, 
Spain,  Finland  and  Bulgaria  are  borrowed  from  the  report 
for  1907  of  the  international  secretary  of  trade  unions  (Ber- 
lin).    Australian    figures   represent    registered     unions     only. 

The  above  rough  estimate  for  the  United  States  and  Can- 
ada is  arrived  at  by  assuming  that  the  rat.e  of  increase  in  the 
grand  total  since  1906  has  been  about  the  same  as  that  shown 
in  the  official  figures  for  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
and  the  railway  organizations.  These  latter  show  an  increase 
of  a  little  over  10  per  cent  while  that  allowed  for  the  grand 
total  of  all  organized  labor  is  a  little  less  when  the  roun4 
number  of  two  and  one-half  millions  is  taken. 

Whatever  the  accuracy  of  the  figures  it  seems  certain 
that  in  absolute  number  of  trade  unionists  America,  Great 
Britain  and  Germany  are  now  quite  close  together  but  that 
all  of  these  three  far  surpass  any  other  countries. 

American  Labor  Organisations 

It  is  impossible  to  quote  figures  concerning  trade  union 
membership  for  the  United  States  and  Canada  separately, 
most  of  the  general  organizations  having  jurisdiction  over 
both  countries  and  making  no  separation  of  the  figures  for 
each  in  their  general  statistics  as  published.  Nor  is  it  pos- 
sible to  quote  complete  figures  for  the  two  countries  together 
since  several  organizations  publish  no  figures  at  all.  Finally, 
in  case  of  some  of  those  which  publish  figures  accuracy  is 
not  claimed.  But  for  the  great  bulk  of  American  trade 
union  membership  there  are  some  figures  available  and 
these  are  summarized  in  the  table  below. 

American  Federation  of  Labor  (average,   190S)    1,586,885 

Railway  employees: 

Carmen    (June,    1909)    18,522 

Conductors    (January,    1909)     38,358 

Kngineers    (January,    1909)     56,403 

Firemen   (January,  1909)    63,410 

Trainmen    (January,    1909)    101,000 

277.683 

Brick   layers   and   masons    68,000 

It  is  surprising  that,  in  spite  of  the  effects  of  the  industrial 
depression  of  1908,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was 
able  to  increase  its  membership  from  1,538,9/0  in  1907  to 
1,586,885  in  1908.     This  result,  however,  is  due  mainly  to  the 


54  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

reinstatement  in  the  Federation  of  the  Brewery  Workers'  un- 
ion, 40,000  strong,  whose  charter  had  been  revoked  in  1907. 
Most  unions  had  a  hard  struggle  to  maintain  their  member- 
ship, and  gains  made  by  some  unions  were  just  about  suf- 
ficient to  counterbalance  the  losses  of  others. 

Fewer  charters  were  issued  by  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  in  1908  than  in  any  previous  year  since  1898,  but 
receipts,  $207,655,  showed  some  improvement  over  1907,  when 
they  had  fallen  to  $I74,330,  comparing  with  $207,815  in  1906. 
Of  the  larger  unions  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  very  few  could  register  any  substantial  gain  in 
1908.  The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  the  largest 
of  the  affiliated  unions,  had  its  membership  reduced  to  252,- 
500  from  254,900  the  previous  year,  a  loss  of  2,400  members. 
The  next  largest  union,  the  carpenters,  decreased  from  192,- 
900  to  179,600,  showing  a  loss  of  13,300  members  comparing 
with  a  gain  of  17,000  made  in  1907.  Organizations  that  reg- 
istered gains  in  1908  were  the  garment  workers  with  a  mem- 
bership of  43,900  or  a  gain  of  10,500  over  1907;  the  machin- 
ists with  a  membership  of  62,100  gaining  6,100  members;  the 
firemen,  with  a  membership  of  17,300  or  a  gain  of  4,800;  the 
painters  with  64,800  members  or  a  gain  of  2,400. 

The  benefits  paid  to  members  by  national  unions  in  1906, 
1907  and  1908  were  as  follows: 

1906.  1907.  IPOS. 

Death    benefits    $994,974  79     $1,076,060  22     $1,257,244  29 

Death  benefits  (members' 

wives)      37.900  00  42.575  00  31,390  00 

Sick     benefits 663,436  61  712.536  02  593,541  84 

Traveling    benefits    59,340  93  58,828  93  61.093  86 

Tool     Insurance 5.77109  10,026  86  5,87163 

Unemployed     benefits 79,582  70  26,984  29  205,254  81 

Total     $1,841,006  12     $1,927,91132     $2,144,395  43 

There  was  a  large  increase  in  1908  in  expenditures  on  un- 
employed benefits,  which  is  self-explanatory,  an  increase  also 
in  expenditures  for  death  benefits,  while  the  expenditures  on 
all  other  benefits  decreased. 

Outlook.  97:  267-70.  February  4,  1911. 

Labor's  Struggle  for  the  Right  to  Organize.  Samuel  Gompers. 

Laboring  men  have  been  subjected  to  many  relentless  pros- 
ecutions and  bitter  persecutions  in  the  years  gone  by  when 


TRADE  UNIONS  55 

making  a  collective  effort  to  promote  their  own  welfare  and 
prosperity.  The  most  oppressive  enactments  commenced  in 
England  in  or  about  the  year  1348,  soon  after  the  Black  Plague, 
The  Black  Plague. cut  down  the  ranks  of  the  laborers  particu- 
larly; it  has  been  estimated  that  fifty  per  cent  of  the  laborers 
perished  during  that  epidemic.  This  reduction  in  the  supply 
of  workers  had  the  effect  of  practically  doubling  the  rate  of 
wages,  and  a  statute  was  passed  by  Parliament  prohibiting 
laborers  from  accepting  higher  wages  than  they  had  been  re- 
ceiving before  the  Black  Plague.  Another  statute  was  passed 
going  so  far  as  to  prescribe  what  the  workers  should  eat  and 
their  clothing;  that  statute  made  it  a  penal  offense  for  a 
laboring  man  to  eat  better  food  or  wear  better  clothing  than 
the  prescribed  limitations  written  in  the  statute. 

Some  two  hundred  years  later  the  English  Parliament,  in 
1563,  enacted  a  statute  authorizing  justices  of  the  peace  to 
fix  the  wages  of  laborers  in  England,  and  made  it  a  crime 
for  laboring  men  to  accept  higher  wages  than  those  pre- 
scribed by  the  justice  of  the  peace;  and  that  statute  remained 
in  effect  and  was  rigidly  enforced  for  a  period  of  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years,  and  it  was  not  until  the  year  1815  that 
this  rigorous  and  abhorrent  statute  was  repealed,  and  only 
then  because  the  justices  of  the  peace  were  suspected  of 
being  too  liberal  toward  the  English  workers. 

In  or  about  the  year  1553  the  English  Parliament  enacted 
a  law  making  it  an  "infamous  crime"  for  workingmen  to 
meet  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  wages  they  should 
expect  or  the  hours  per  day  that  they  would  toil;  and  in 
1796  a  similar  statute  was  re-enacted,  making  it  a  crime  for 
workingmen  to  assemble  to  discuss  the  hours  of  toil,  the 
rates  of  wages,  or  any  'question  bearing  upon  their  industrial 
conditions.  It  was  not  until  1825  that  this  legal  ban  was 
removed  from  the  workers  of  England,  and  even  then  the 
organizations  that  they  had  established  received  no  legal 
status;  they  had  no  standing  in  the  courts  of  the  nation. 
It  is  recorded  that  as  late  as  1869  an  official  of  a  labor  or- 
ganization, who  had  embezzled  the  funds  belonging  to  his 
organization,  was  prosecuted  for  the  alleged  crime,  but  the 
court  dismissed  the  action  on  the  ground  that  "labor  organi- 


56  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

zations  were  unknown  to  the  law  of  England,  and  the  person 
committing  the  theft  had  not  perpetrated  a  crime." 

Prior  to  1824  the  law  of  England  treated  the  workingmen 
who  endeavored  to  secure  an  amelioration  of  their  condition 
with  great  severity;  strikes  of  any  magnitude  or  duration 
were  almost  impossible,  as  all  attempts  at  organization  for 
such  a  purpose  were  prevented,  as  far  as  it  was  possible,  by 
the  law  against  combination  which  was  then  in  force.  The 
great  labor  disputes  which  had  taken  place  previous  to  that 
time,  and,  in  fact,  for  years  afterwards,  were  spasmodic  out- 
breaks of  actual  industrial  revolt  against  innumerable  griev- 
ances instead  of  deliberate  arrangements  and  skillfully  or- 
ganized systems  for  bringing  about  rational  changes  in  exist- 
ing industrial  conditions. 

The  combination  laws  in  operation  from  1799  to  the  time 
of  their  repeal  in  1825  were  extremely  stringent  in  charac- 
ter; in  fact,  the  preamble  of  the  Act  of  1799  strikes  the  key- 
note of  the  industrial  legislation  of  that  period,  in  which  it 
was  stated:  "Whereas,  great  numbers  of  journeymen  manu- 
facturers and  workmen  in  various  parts  of  this  kingdom  have, 
by  unlawful  meetings  and  combinations,  endeavored  to  ob- 
tain advance  of  their  wages  and  to  effectuate  other  illegal 
purposes;  and  the  laws  at  present  in  force  against  such  un- 
lawful conduct  have  been  found  to  be  inadequate  to  the  sup- 
pression thereof,  whereby  it  has  become  necessary  that  more 
effectual  provision  should  be  made  against  such  unlawful 
combinations,  and  for  preventing  such  unlawful  practices  in 
the  future  and  for  bringing  such  offenders  to  more  speedy 
and  exemplary  justice." 

The  Act  went  further,  and  declared  null  and  void  all 
agreements  "between  journeymen  rjianu^acturers  or  work- 
men for  obtaining  an  advance  of  wages,  or  for  lessening  or 
altering  their  hours  of  labor  and  for  various  other  stated 
purposes."  Even  the  Act  of  1825  held  that  it  was  "unlawful 
for  persons  to  meet  for  the  purpose  of  consulting  upon  and 
determining  the  rate  of  wages  or  prices  which  the  persons 
present  at  such  meeting  should  demand  for  their  work." 

The  interpretation  of  the  law  was  left  to  the  courts,  and 
the  judges  promptly  declared  labor  combinations  to  be  un- 
lawful at  common   law,   on  the  ground   "that  they  were  in 


TRADE  UNIONS  57 

restraint  of  trade."  These  decisions  led  to  further  and  con- 
tinued agitation  on  the  part  of  the  workmen,  and  in  1859  a 
law  was  enacted  providing  that  workmen  should  not  be  held 
guilty  of  "molestation"  or  "obstruction,"  under  the  Act  of 
1825,  simply  because  they  entered  into  agreements  to  fix  the 
rate  of  wages  or  the  hours  of  labor,  or  to  endeavor  peaceably 
to  persuade  others  to  cease  or  abstain  from  work  to  produce 
the  same  results.  Again  the  interpretation  of  this  law  by 
the  courts  was  unsatisfactory  to  its  creators,  and  in  1867  a 
royal  commission  was  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  subject 
and  report  upon  it  td  Parliament.  The  result  of  this  inves- 
tigation brought  forth  two  Acts  in  1871 — (i)  the  Trade  Union 
Act;  (2)  the  Criminal  Law  Amendment  Act.  The  latter 
statute  repealed  the  Acts  of  1825  and  1859.  This  new  Act 
made  some  stringent  provisions  against  employers  and 
against  employees  in  order  to  prevent  alleged  coercion,  vio- 
lations, threats,  etc.  But  there  was  no  prohibition  against 
doing  or  conspiring  to  do  any  act  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
in  restraint  of  trade,  unless  it  came  within  the  scope  of  the 
enumerated  prohibitions. 

It  was  thought  that  by  the  passage  of  these  two  Acts 
ordinary  strikes  would  be  considered  legal,  providing  the 
prescribed  limits  were  not  exceeded.  It  was  generally  under- 
stood that  if  men  undertook  a  strike  they  were  not  in  danger 
of  being  prosecuted  for  criminal  conspiracy.  But  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  Justice  Brett  held  that  "a  threat  of  simultaneous 
breach  of  contract  by  men  was  conduct  which  the  jury  ought 
to  regard  as  a  conspiracy  to  prevent  the  company  carrying 
on  its  business."  The  workmen  were  sentenced  to  twelve 
months'  imprisonment.  This  decision  and  the  severity  of 
the  sentence  caused  a  widespread  agitation  in  the  country 
and  a  great  revulsion  of  feeling,  so  much  so  that  it  resulted 
in  the  appointment  of  another  royal  commission,  which  re- 
ported to  Parliament  further  alterations  in  the  law;  and  in 
iS/S  the  Home  Secretary,  Mr.  R.  A.  Cross,  introduced  a  bill 
in  Parliament  entitled  "The  Conspiracy  and  Protection  of 
Property  Act."  The  bill  passed  and  was  approved  August 
13,  and  is  known  as  the  "Trade  Union  Act  of  1876."  The 
former  picket  clauses  of  the  Act  of  1871  were  retained  in  the 
new   law,  but   this   important   addition   was   incorporated   in 


58  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  Act:  "An  agreement  or  combination  of  two  or  more 
persons  to  do,  or  to  procure  to  be  done,  any  act  in  contem- 
plation or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute  between  employers 
and  workmen,  shall  not  be  punishable  as  a  conspiracy  if 
such  act  as  aforesaid  when  committed  by  one  person  w^ould 
not  be  punishable  as  a  crime."  And  in  another  section  the 
definition  of  a  trade  union  is  thus  stated:  "The  term  'trade 
union'  means  any  combination,  whether  temporary  or  per- 
manent, for  regulating  the  relations  between  workmen  and 
masters,  or  between  workmen  and  workmen,  or  between  mas- 
ters and  masters,  or  for  imposing  restrictive  conditions  on 
the- conduct  of  any  trade  or  business,  whether  such  combina- 
tions would  or  would  not,  if  the  principal  Act  had  not  been 
passed,  have  been  deemed  to  have  been  an  unlawful  combina- 
tion by  reason  of  some  one  or  more  of  its  purposes  being  in 
restraint  of  trade."  Generally  speaking,  this  Act  gave  the 
English  workingmen  a  wider  latitude.  One  of  the  Trade 
Union  Reports  says  concerning  it:  "It  has  permitted  us  to 
do  in  combination  what  we  are  permitted  to  do  as  individ- 
uals, but  which  we  were  prohibited  from  doing  in  association 
before  that  law  came  into  eflfect;  it  has  more  particularly 
established  our  rights;  it  has  given  us  certain  privileges  and 
restrictions,  and  at  the  same  time  has  laid  equal  privileges 
and  restrictions  upon  employers." 

In  an  important  test  case,  "Allen  vs.  Flood,"  on  Decem- 
ber 14,  1897,  this  Act  was  sustained,  and  the  British  work- 
men believed  that  the  code  of  industrial  warfare  was  precise- 
ly' defined  so  that  they  could  carry  on  either  defensive  or 
offensive  operations  against  employers  without  subjecting 
themselves  to  the  penalties  of  the  law.  But  in  June,  1900, 
the  celebrated  Taflf-Vale  Railway  dispute  took  place,  in  which 
a  railway  company  obtained  a  decision  with  damages  allowed 
in  the  sum  of  $119,842  for  the  alleged  injury  done  to  the 
railway  company  by  the  loss  of  its  business  and  the  extra 
expense  involved  arising  out  of  "unlawful  and  malicious  con- 
spiracy of  the  defendants."  This  decision  was  rendered  by 
Mr.  Justice  Farwell.  An  appeal  was  immediately  taken  to 
the  Court  of  Appeals,  which  held  that  "there  was  no  section 
in  the  Acts  of  1871  and  1876  empowering  a  trade  union  to 
sue  or  be  sued,  and  that  if  the  legislature  had  intended  to 


TRADE  UNIONS  59 

make  that  possible  the  legislature  well  knew  how  in 
plain  terms  to  bring  about  such  a  result;"  and,  further,-  the 
Court  of  Appeals  ruled  in  conclusion,  "As  there  is  no  statute 
empowering  this  action  to  be  brought  against  the  union  in  its 
registered  name,  it  is  not  maintainable  against  the  Amalga- 
mated Society  of  Railway  Servants,  and  these  defendants 
must  therefore  be  struck  out,  the  injunction  against  them 
must  be  dissolved,  and  the  appeal  as  regards  these  defen- 
dants must  be  allowed  with  costs  here  and  below," 

From  this  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  the  Taff-Vale 
Railway  Company  appealed  to  the  House  of  Lords,  and  in 
pronouncing  the  concluding  opinion  of  that  Court  the  Lord 
Chancellor  said:  "In  this  case  I  am  content  to  adopt  the 
judgment  of  Justice  Farwell,  with  which  I  entirely  concur; 
and  I  cannot  find  any  satisfactory  answer  to  that  judgment 
in  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  which  overruled  it. 
If  the  legislature  has  created  a  thing  which  can  own  property, 
which  can  employ  servants,  which  can  inflict  injury,  it  must 
be  taken,  I  think,  to  have  impliedly  given  the  power  to  make 
it  suable  in  a  court  of  law  for  injuries  purposely  done  by  its 
authority  and  procurement.  The  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  is  reversed,  and  that  of  Justice  Farwell  restored." 

This  decision  was  so  startling  that  it  was  vigorously  de- 
nounced as  a  scandalous  illustration  of  "judge-made  law," 
and  "a  perversion  of  the  intent  of  Parliament  by  hostile 
judicial  interpretation." 

The  British  trade-unionists  immediately  commenced  a 
campaign  to  secure  the  amendment  of  the  Trade  Union  Acts, 
by  which  the  legislature  should  affirmatively  and  positively 
declare  that  the  funds  of  trade  unions  were  not  liable  for  any 
act  of  a  trade  union  that  was  not  in  itself  criminal.  The  re- 
sult was  that  in  March,  1906,  the  Government  brought  in  a 
bill  amending  the  "Conspiracy  and  Protection  of  Property 
Act"  to  meet  the  demands  of  labor.  This  bill  was  passed 
December  21,  1906,  and  is  known  as  the  "Trades  Dispute 
Act,"  which,  because  of  its  importance  and  application,  I 
quote.     It  is  as  follows: 

An  act  done  In  pursuance  of  an  agreement  or  combination  by 
two  or  more  persons  shall,  if  done  in  contemplation  or  further- 
ance of  a  trade  dispute,  not  be  actionable  unless  the  act,  If  done 
without  any  such  agreement  or  combination,  would  be  actionable. 


6o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 


It  shall  be  lawful  for  one  or  more  persons,  acting  on  their 
own  behalf,  or  on  behalf  of  a  trade  union,  or  of  an  individual  em- 
ployer or  firm,  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dis- 
pute, to  attend  at  or  near  a  house  or  place  where  a  person  re- 
sides or  works  or  carries  on  business  or  happens  to  be,  if  they 
so  attend  merely  for  the  purpose  of  peacefully  obtaining  or  com- 
munfcating  information,  or  of  peacefully  persuading  any  person 
to  work  or  abstain  from  working. 

An  act  done  by  a  person  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of 
a  trade  dispute  shall  not  be  actionable  on  the  ground  only  that 
it  induces  some  other  person  to  break  a  contract  of  employment, 
or  that  it  is  an  interference  with  the  trade,  business,  or  employ- 
ment of  some  other  person,  or  with  the  right  of  some  other  per- 
son to  dispose  of  his  capital  or  his  labor  as  he  wills. 

An  action  against  a  trade  union,  whether  of  workmen  or 
masters,  or  against  any  members  or  officials  thereof  on  behalf 
of  themselves  and  all  other  members  of  the  trade  union  in  respect 
of  any  tortious  act  alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  or  on 
behalf  of  the  trade  union,   shall  not  be  entertained  by  any  court. 

Nothing  in  this  section  shall  affect  the  liability  of  the  trustees 
of  a  trade  union  to  be  sued  in  the  events  provided  for  by  the 
Trades  Union  Act,  1871,  section  nine,  except  in  respect  of  any 
tortious  act  committed  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  union  in  contem- 
plation or  in  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute. 

Thus  the  working  people  of  Great  Britain   secured  their 

right  to  organize  and  to  exercise  their  activities  upon   the 

economic  field  for  their  own  and  for  the  common  protection. 


Scribner's  Magazine.  38:  627-33.  November,   1905. 
Hope  for  Labor  Unions.     J.  Laurence  Laughlin. 

What,  then,  are  the  means  adopted  by  the  unions  to  raise 
wages?  Obviously,  it  is  not  possible  to  predicate  in  one 
statement  what  is  true  of  all  unions.  There  are  many  dif- 
fering practical  policies  in  force;  and  yet  it  is  possible  to  in- 
dicate the  one  common  economic  principle  underlying  the 
action  of  the  majority  of  the  large  and  influential  organiza- 
tions. To  be  brief,  the  practical  policy  of  labor  unions  is 
based  on  the  principle  of  a  monopoly  of  the  supply  of  labor- 
ers in  a  given  occupation.  By  combination  also  the  gain  of 
collective  bargaining  is  obtained.  Just  as  manufacturers  at- 
tempt to  control  the  supply  and  the  price  of  an  article,  so 
the  unions  attempt  to  fix  the  rate  of  wages  by  controlling 
the  number  of  possible  competitors  for  hire.  It  would  seem 
that  what  is  sauce  for  the  goose  should  be  sauce  for  the 
gander. 

The  principle  of  monopoly,  it  should  be  observed,  is  ef- 
fective  in    regulating  price   only   if   the   monopoly   is    fairly 


TRADE  UNIONS  6i 

complete;  it  must  include  practically  all  of  the  supply.  But 
even  under  these  conditions  the  price  cannot  be  settled  alone 
by  those  who  control  the  supply.  The  demand  of  those  who 
buy  is  equally  necessary  to  the  outcome.  As  a  rule,  the 
monopolistic  seller  must  set  a  price  which  will  induce  the 
demand  to  take  off  the  whole  supply.  Too  high  a  price  will 
lessen  consumption  and  lessen  demand. 

In  a  similar  way,  not  only  must  there  be  an  active  demand 
for  labor  from  employers,  but  to  fix  the  price  of  labor  a  un- 
ion must  control  practically  all  of  a  given  kind  of  labor. 
Here  we  find  the  pivotal  difficulty  in  the  policy  of  the  un- 
ions; and  we  find  clashes  of  opinion  as  to  the  facts.  If  the 
union  does  not  contain  all  the  persons  competing  for  the 
given  kind  of  work,  then  its  theory  of  monopoly  will  be  a 
failure  in  practice.  In  fact,  the  unions  composed  of  unskilled 
laborers,  such  as  teamsters,  can  never  include  all  the  per- 
sons, near  and  far,  capable  of  competing  for  their  positions. 
The  principle  of  monopoly  cannot  be  made  to  work  success- 
fully in  such  unions. 

But  it  will  be  objected  by  union  leaders  that  it  is  their 
policy  to  gather  every  laborer  into  the  union,  and  thus 
eventually  control  all  the  supply  in  an  invincible  monopoly. 
The  unions,  however,  do  not,  in  fact,  admit  all  comers. 
Some,  such  as  machinists,  admirably  demand  skill  as  a  pre- 
requisite of  admission;  others,  such  as  telegraphers,  make 
the  admission  of  apprentices  practically  impossible;  while 
others  again,  like  some  woodworkers,  find  difficulty  in  get- 
ting apprentices,  and  consequently  urge  training  in  the  public 
schools.  In  such  variety  of  practice  there,  nevertheless, 
emerges  the  fact  that  many  unions  try  to  create  an  artificial 
monopoly  by  excluding  others,  and  yet  try  to  keep  the  union 
scale  of  wages  by  preventing  in  many  ways  the  employment 
of  non-union  men.  On  the  other  hand,  should  the  unions 
adopt  the  plan  of  admitting  all  who  apply,  then  all  laborers 
being  unionists,  the  situation  would  be  the  same  as  regards 
supply  as  if  there  were  no  unions.  Could  the  unions  then 
maintain  a  "union  scale"  of  wages?  Evidently,  if  the  whole 
supply  of  laborers  is  thus  introduced  into  the  field  of  em- 
ployment, then  the  rate  of  wages  for  all  in  any  one  occupa- 
tion can  never  be  more  than  that  rate  which  will  warrant 


62  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  employment  of  all — that  is,  the  market  rate  of  wages. 
Although  all  laborers  are  included  in  the  unions,  they  would 
have  the  advantages,  whatever  they  may  be,  of  collective 
bargaining.  Yet  if  the  unions  really  believe  that  when  every 
laborer  is  inside  the  union  collective  bargaining  can  of  itself, 
irrespective  of  the  supply,  raise  the  rate  of  wages,  they  are 
doomed  to  disappointment.  Wholly  aside  from  the  influence 
of  demand,  in  order  to  control  the  rate  of  wages,  the  unions 
which  include  all  laborers  must  effectually  control  immigra- 
tion and  the  rate  of  births.  No  one,  it  scarcely  need  be 
said,  is  so  ignorant  of  economic  history  as  to  believe  that 
such  a  control  over  births  can  be  maintained.  There  is  little 
hope  for  higher  wages  by  this  method  of  action. 

In  the  anthracite-coal  regions,  for  instance,  it  will  be 
said  that  strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  force  all  the  men  to 
join  the  unions.  If  not  only  those  on  the  ground,  but  all 
newcomers,  are  admitted  to  membership,  then  not  all  union- 
ists can  find  employment  in  the  mines.  At  the  best,  if  they 
can  fix  the  rate  of  wages  which  employers  must  pay  those 
who  do  work,  some  will  remain  unemployed.  In  such  a  case, 
the  working  members  must  support  the  idle — which  is  equiva- 
lent to  a  reduction  of  the  wages  of  those  who  work — or  the 
unemployed  must  seek  work  elsewhere.  Sooner  or  later,  for 
men  capable  of  doing  a  particular  sort  of  work  an  adjust- 
ment as  a  whole  between  the  demand  for  laborers  and  the 
supply  of  them  must  be  reached  on  the  basis  of  a  market 
rate. 

Whatever  the  reasons,  the  fact  is  to-day  unmistakable 
that  the  unions  include  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  total 
body  of  laborers.  In  spite  of  the  proclaimed  intention  to 
include  in  a  union  each  worker  of  every  occupation,  and  then 
to  federate  all  the  unions,  the  unions  contain  far  less  than 
a  majority  of  the  working  force  of  the  country.  To  the 
present  time,  therefore,  the  practical  policy  of  the  unions  is 
one  of  artificial  monopoly;  that  is,  not  able  to  control  the 
whole  supply,  the  union  attempts  to  fix  a  "union  scale"  and 
maintain  only  its  own  members  at  work.  This  situation, 
consequently,  means  always  and  inevitably  the  existence  of 
non-union  men,  against  whom  warfare  must  be  waged.  Under 
this   system  high  wages  for  some  can  be  obtained  only  by 


TRADE  UNIONS  63 

the  sacrifice  of  others  outside  the  union.  The  economic 
means  chosen  by  the  unions,  then,  to  gain  higher  wages  are 
practicable  only  for  a  part  of  the  labor  body,  and  then  only 
provided  all  other  competitors  can  be  driven  from  the  field. 
The  policy  of  artificial  monopoly  being,  thus,  the  common 
principle  of  a  great  majority  of  unions,  we  may  next  briefly 
consider  the  inevitable  consequences  of  such  a  policy. 

1.  The  immediate  corollary  of  the  union  policy  is  a  war- 
fare a  I'outrance  against  non-union  mei^.  ,  This  hostility 
against  brother  workers  is  excused  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
the  only  means  of  keeping  up  the  "union  scale"  of  wages. 
Although  an  artificial  monopoly  is  unjust  and  selfish,  and 
certain  to  end  in  failure,  the  unions  have  doggedly  adhered^ 
to  it  so  far  as  to  create  a  code  of  ethics  which  justifies  any 
act  which  preserves  the  monopoly.  This  is  the  reason  why 
a  non-union  mian  seeking  work  is  regarded  as  a  traitor  to 
his  class,  when  tlr  reality  he  is  a  traitor  to  an  insufficient 
economic  principle.  As  a  human  being  he  has  the  same 
right  to  live  and  work  as  any  other,  whether  a  member  of  a 
union  or  not.  The  arrogance  of  unionism  in  ruling  on  the 
fundamentals  of  human^iberty,  the  assumption  of  infallibility 
and  superiority  to  institutions  which  have-been  won  only  by 
centuries  of  political  sacrifice  and  effort,  is  something  super- 
nal— something  to  be  resented  by  every  lover  of  liberty. 
Unionism,  if  unjust  to  other  men,  cannot  stand. 

2.  Since  the  "union  scale"  of  an  artificial  monopoly  is 
clearly  not  the  market  rate  of  wages,  the  maintenance  of  the 
former  can  be  perpetuated  only  by  limiting  the  supply  to 
the  members  of  the  union.  The  only  means  of  keeping  non- 
union men  from  competition  is  force.  Consequently,  the 
inevitable  outcome  of  the  present  policy  of  many  labor  or- 
ganizations is  lawlessness  and  an  array  of  power  against  the 
state.  Their  policy  being  what  it  is,  their  purposes  can  be 
successfully  carried  out  only  by  force,  and  by  denying  to 
outsiders  the  privileges  of  equality  and  liberty.  Sometimes 
the  means  of  enforcing  their  unenacted  views  is  known  as 
"peaceful  picketing";  but  this  is  only  a  mask  for  threats  of 
violence.  In  fact,  intimidation  of  all  kinds  up  to  actual  mur- 
der has  been  employed  to  drive  non-union  competitors  out 
of   the   labor   market.     Picketing,   boycotts,   breaking  heads. 


64  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

slugging,  murder — all  outrages  against  law  and  order,  against 
a  government  of  liberty  and  equality — are  the  necessary  con- 
sequences of  the  existing  beliefs  of  unionists,  and  they  can- 
not gain  their  ends  without  them.  So  long  as  the  unions 
adhere  to  their  present  principles  so  long  will  they  be  driven 
to  defy  the  majesty  of  the  law,  and  work  to  subvert  a  proper 
respect  for  the  orderly  conduct  of  government. 

The  dictum  of  a  few  men  in  a  union  has  been  set  above 
the  equality  of  men  before  the  law.  The  union  lays  down 
an  ethical  proposition,  and  by  its  own  agencies  sets  itself  to 
apply  it  at  any  and  all  cost.  This  is  a  method  of  tyranny 
and  not  of  libertj'.  The  right  of  the  humblest  person  to  be 
protected  in  his  life  and  property  is  the  very  cornerstone  of 
free  government.  It  means  more  for  the  weak  than  for  the 
strong.  Therefore  the  opinions  of  a  loosely  constituted 
body,  representing  a  limited  set  of  interests,  should  not — and 
v/ill  not — be  allowed  to  assume  a  power  greater  than  the 
political  liberty  for  all,  rich  or  poor,  which  has  been  a 
thousand  years  in  the  making.  By  the  abuses  of  unionism 
there  has  been  set  up  an  imperium  in  itnpcrio — one  inconsis- 
tent with  the  other.  One  or  the  other  must  give  way.  Which 
one  it  shall  be  no  one  can  doubt.  The  dictum  of  rioters  will 
never  be  allowed  by  modern  society  to  eradicate  the  benef- 
icent results  which  have  issued  from  the  long  evolution  of 
civil  liberty.  If  the  platform  of  the  unions  is  opposed  to  the 
fundamentals  of  law  and  progress,  it  must  yield  to  the 
inevitable  and  be  reconstructed  on  correct  principles  of  eco- 
nomics and  justice. 

3.  The  labor  leaders,  finding  themselves  opposed  by  the 
strong  forces  of  society,  have  at  times  made  use  of  politics. 
They  have  sought  to  influence  executive  action  in  their  favor. 
Mayors  of  cities  are  under  pressure  not  to  use  the  police  to 
maintain  order  when  strikers  are  intimidating  non-union  men. 
More  than  that,  since  the  presence  of  soldiers  would  secure 
safety  from  force  to  non-union  workers,  union  leaders  have 
urged  governors,  and  even  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  to  refrain  from  sending  troops  to  points  where  dis- 
orderly strikes  are  in  operation.  Not  only  the  police  and 
the  soldier)',  but  even  the  courts,  when  used  solely  to  enforce 
the  law  as  creAted  by  the  majority  of  voters,  have  been  con- 


TRADE  UNIONS  65 

spicuously  attacked  as  the  enemies  of  "organized  labor."  The 
hostility  of  these  agencies  in  truth  is  not  toward  labor,  or  its 
organization,  but  toward  the  perverse  and  misguided  policy 
adopted  by  the  labor  leaders. 

The  entry  of  unions  into  politics,  in  general,  is  a  sign  of 
sound  growth.  It  is,  at  least,  a  recognition  that  the  only 
legitimate  way  of  enforciTig  their  opinions  upon  others  is 
by  getting  them  incorporated  into  law  by  constitutional 
means.  And  yet  legislation  in  favor  of  special  interests  will 
be  met  by  the  demand  of  equal  treatment  for  all  other  in- 
terests concerned;  and  in  this  arena  the  battle  must  be  fought 
out.  The  unions  will  not  have  their  own  way  by  any  means. 
So  far  as  concerns  the  rate  of  wages,  in  any  event,  political 
agitation  and  legislation  can  do  little.  The  forces  governing 
the  demand  and  supply  of  labor  are  beyond  the  control  of 
legislation.  But  other  subjects  of  labor  legislation  have  been 
introduced,  as  is  well  known,  such  as  eight-hour  laws,  high 
wages  for  state  employees,  and  demands  for  employment  by 
the  government  of  only  union  men.  All  these  efforts  would 
be  largely  unnecessary  were  the  action  of  the  unions  founded 
on  another  principle  than  monopoly. 

4.  The'  difficulties  arising  from  this  incorrect  policy  of 
artificial  monopoly  of  the  labor  supply  have  been  felt  by  the 
unions,  but  they  have  not  been  assigned  to  their  true  cause. 
Believing  in  the  theory,  even  though  incorrect,  they  have 
gone  on  enforcing  their  demands  by  methods  unrelated  to 
the  real  causes  at  work.  They  have  tried  to  strengthen  their 
position  by  claiming  a  share  in  the  ownership  of  the  estab- 
lishment in  which  they  work,  or  a  right  of  property  in  the 
product  they  produce,  or  a  part  in  the  business  manage- 
ment of  the  concern  which  employs  them.  They  have  tried 
to  say  who  shall  be  hired,  who  dismissed,  where  materials 
shall  be  bought,  to  whom  goods  shall  be  carried  or  sold, 
and  the  like.  Their  purpose  is  not  always  clear;  but  it  seems 
to  be  a  part  of  a  plan  to  keep  the  employer  at  their  mercy, 
and  thus  under  the  necessity  of  submitting  to  any  and  all 
demands  as  regards  wages. 

In  this  matter  the  unions  cannot  succeed.  The  very  es- 
sence of  a  definite  rate  of  wages  is  that  the  laborer  contracts 
himself   out   of   all   risk.     If    the   workman   claims    to    be    a 


66  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

partner  in  the  commercial  enterprise,  asking  in  addition  a 
part  of  the  gains,  he  must  also  be  willing  to  share  the  losses. 
This  is  obviously  impossible  for  the  ordinary  working  man. 
Hired  labor  and  narrow  means  go  together.  Capital  can, 
labor  cannot,  wait  without  serious  loss.  Laborers,  therefore, 
cannot  take  the  risks  of  industry  and  assume  the  familiar 
losses  of  business.  This  is  the  fall  and  conclusive  reason 
why  the  laborer  contracts  himself  out  of  risk  and  accepts  a 
definite  rate  of  wages.  If  he  does  this,  he  is  estopped,  both 
morally  and  legally,  from  further  proprietary  claims  on  the 
product  or  establishment. 

By  way  of  resume,  it  is  to  be  seen  that  the  attempt  to 
increase  the  income  of  labor  on  the  unionist  principle  of  a 
limitation  of  competitors  has  led  into  an  impasse,  where  further 
progress  is  blocked  by  the  following  evils : 

1.  The  wrong  to  non-union  men. 

2.  The  defiance  of  the  established  order  of  society. 

3.  A  futile  resort  to  legislation. 

4.  The  interference  with  the  employer's  management. 

In  contrast  with  the  existing  policy,  which  can  end  only 
in  discouragement  and  failure,  permit  me,  wholly  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  membership  of  the  unions,  to  suggest  another 
policy  which  will  certainly  end  in  higher  wages  and  open  a 
road  to  permanent  progress  for  all  working  men.  Instead  of 
the  principle  of  monopoly  of  competitors,  I  offer  the  prin- 
ciple of  productivity,  as  a  basis  on  which  the  action  of 
unions  should  be  founded. 

By  productivity  is  meant  the  practical  ability  to  add  to 
the  product  turned  out  in  any  industry.  The  productivity  of 
labor  operates  on  its  price  just  as  does  utility  on  the  price 
of  any  staple  article — improve  the  quality  of  it  and  you  in- 
crease the  demand  for  it.  This  general  truth  is  notliing  new. 
The  purchaser  of  a  horse  will  pay  more  for  a  good  horse 
than  for  a  poor  one.  A  coat  made  of  good  material  will  sell 
for  more  than  one  made  of  poor  material.  Why?  Because 
it  yields  more  utility,  or  satisfaction,  to  the  purchaser.  In 
the  same  way,  if  the  utility  of  the  labor  to  the  employer  is 
increased,  it  will  be  more  desired;  that  is,  if  the  laborer  yields 
more  of  that  for  which  the  employer  hires  labor,  the  em- 
ployer will  pay  more  for  it,  on  purely  commercial  grounds. 


TRADE  UNIONS  dy 

Now  it  happens  that  where  productivity  is  low — that  is, 
where  men  are  generally  unskilled — the  supply  is  quite  be- 
yond the  demand  for  that  kind  of  labor.  Productivity  being 
given,  supply  regulates  the  price.  Obviously,  to  escape  from 
the  thralldom  of  an  oversupply  of  labor  in  any  given 
class,  or  occupation,  the  laborer  must  improve  his  produc- 
tivity. That  is  another  way  of  saying  that  if  he  trains  him- 
self and  acquires  skill,  he  moves  up  into  a  higher  and  less 
crowded  class  of  labor.  The  effect  on  wages  is  twofold: 
(i)  he  is  now  in  a  group  where  the  supply  is  relatively  less 
to  demand  than  before;  and  (2)  his  utility  as  a  laborer  to 
the  employer  is  greater  and  acts  to  increase  the  demand  for 
his  services.  Productivity,  therefore,  is  the  one  sure  method 
of  escape  from  the  depressing  effects  on  wages  of  an  over- 
sujjply  of  labor. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  describe  in  detail  the  forms  by  which 
productivity  shows  itself  in  the  concrete.  If  the  laborer  is  a 
teamster,  he  can  improve  in  sobriety,  punctuality,  knowledge 
of  horses,  skill  in  driving,  improved  methods  of  loading  and 
unloading,  avoidance  of  delays,  and  in  scrupulous  honesty. 
If,  moreover,  he  studies  his  employer's  business  and  consults 
his  interest — instead  of  studying  how  to  put  him  at  a  disad- 
vantage, or  making  work — he  still  further  increases  his  pro- 
ductivity and  value  to  his  employer.  In  other  occupations 
and  in  other  grades  of  work  the  process  is  simple.  In  fact, 
it  is  the  ordinary  influence  of  skill  on  wages;  and  men  have 
been  acting  on  an  understanding  of  it  time  out  of  mind. 

To  this  suggestion  it  may  be  objected  that  the  workman 
who  makes  himself  more  capable  receives  no  more  from  an 
employer  than  the  less  capable;  that  employers  treat  all  alike 
and  are  unwilling  to  recognize  skill.  The  fact  is  doubted; 
lor  it  is  incredible  that  intelligent  managers  should  be  for- 
any  length  of  time  blind  to  their  own  self-interest.  But  if 
they  are  thus  blind,  and  if  they  place  an  obstacle  to  the 
recognition  of  merit  and  skill,  then  we  at  once  see  how  the 
unions  can  make  a  legitimate  use  of  their  organized  power 
by  demanding  higher  wages  for  higher  productivity.  Such 
demands  are  sure  to  meet  with  success. 

This  method  of  raising  wages,  based  on  forces  leading  to 
a   lessened    supply   and   an   increased   demand,    shows    a    dif- 


68  SICLECTED  ARTlLl.KS 

lerencc  as  wide  as  the  poles  from  the  existing  artificial 
method  of  "bucking"  against  an  oversupply  by  an  ineffective 
monopoly.  To  the  laborer  who  wishes  higher  wages  the 
advantage  of  the  former  over  the  latter  is  so  evident  and  so 
great  that  further  illustration  or  emphasis  on  this  point 
would  be  out  of  place.  In  the  economic  history  of  the  lasv 
fifty  or  sixty  years  in  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  it 
appears  that  money  wages  have  risen  from  about  fifty  per 
cent,  for  unskilled  labor  to  over  one  hundred  per  cent,  for 
higher  grades  of  work,  while  the  hours  of  labor  per  day  have 
been  lowered  considerably.  Moreover,  this  gain  in  money 
wages  has  been  accompanied  by  a  fall  in  the  prices  of  many 
articles  consumed  by  the  laboring  class.  This  fortunate  out- 
come has  gone  on  simultaneously  with  a  progress  in  inven- 
tions and  in  the  industrial  arts  never  before  equalled  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  and  it  is  a  progress  which  has  enabled 
the  same  labor  and  capital  to  turn  out  a  greater  number  of 
units  of  product.  In  fact,  the  enlargement  of  the  output  has 
been  such  that  each  unit  could  be  sold  at  a  lower  price  than 
ever  before  and  yet  the  value  of  the  total  product  of  the 
industry  has  sufliced  to  pay  the  old  return  upon  capital  and 
also  to  pay  absolutely  higher  money  wages  to  the  workmen 
for  a  less  number  of  hours  of  labor  in  the  day.  Indeed,  one 
is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  gain  in  wages  by  the  working 
classes  in  recent  years  has  been  due  far  more  to  this  in- 
creased productivity  of  industry  and  much  less  to  the  de- 
mands of  labor  unions  than  has  been  generally  supposed. 
The  productivity  method  of  raising  wages  has  the  advantage 
over  the  one  in  present  use  in  that  it  gives  a  quid  pro  quo, 
and  excites  no  antagonism  on  the  part  of  the  employer.  A 
pressure  by  strikes  to  have  productivity  recognized  must  be 
i>uccessful,  since  an  employer  cannot  aflford  the  loss  conse- 
quent on  hiring  an  inefficient  workman.  The  insistence,  as 
at  present,  on  a  uniform  minimum  rate  of  wages  by  process 
of  terrorism,  and  without  regard  to  the  supply  of  possible 
competitors,  cannot  for  a  moment  be  considered  in  com- 
parison with  the  hopeful  and  successful  method  through  im- 
proved productivity.  The  one  is  outside,  the  other  within, 
the  control  of  any  individual  initiative. 

Keeping  these  things  in  mind,  those  of  us  who  would  like 


TRADE  UNIONS  69 

to  see  a  definite  and  permanent  progress  of  the  laboring 
classes  believe  that  here  the  unions  have  a  great  opportunity. 
They  must  drop  their  dogged  attempts  to  enforce  a  policy 
against  the  oversupply  of  labor  by  a  futile  monopoly;  it  is  as 
useless  and  hopeless  as  to  try  to  sweep  back  the  sea  with  a 
broom.  On  the  other  hand,  should  the  unions  demand  as 
conditions  of  admission  definite  tests  of  efficiency  and  char- 
acter, and  work  strenuously  to  raise  the  level  of  their  pro- 
ductivity, they  would  become  limited  bodies,  composed  of 
men  of  high  skill  and  efficiency.  The  difficulty  of  supply 
would  be  conquered.  A  monopoly  would  be  created,  but  it 
would  be  a  natural  and  not  an  artificial  one.  The  distinction 
between  the  union  and  non-union  men  would,  then,  be  one  be- 
tween the  skilled  and  the  unskilled.  The  contest  between 
union  and  non-union  men  would  no  longer  be  settled  by 
force.  Thus  the  sympathy  of  employers  and  the  public 
would  be  transferred  from  the  non-union,  or  the  unfit,  to  the 
union,  or  the  fit  men.  If  space  were  sufficient,  interesting 
cases  could  be  cited  here  of.  unions  which  have  already 
caught  sight  of  the  truth,  and  greatly  improved  their  posi- 
tion thereby.  This  policy  unmistakably  opens  the  path  of 
hope  and  progress  for  the  future. 

In  contrast  with  the  mistaken  policy  of  the  present,  we 
may  set  down  the  different  ways  in  which  productivity  would 
act  upon  the  four  evils  enumerated  at  the  end  of  the  first 
part  of  our  study: 

1.  The  wrong  to  the  non-union  man  would  disappear. 
The  rivalry  of  union  and  non-union  men  would  no  longer  be 
the  competition  of  equals,  because  the  non-union,  or  inferior, 
men  would  be  out  of  the  competition  for  given  kinds  of 
work.  There  is  no  wrong  to  a  non-union  man  if  he  is  ex- 
cluded from  work  for  inefficiency.  The  wrong  of  to-day  is 
that  the  union  often  shields  numbers  of  incapables. 

2.  Since  the  unionists  would  represent  skill,  and  the  non- 
unionists  lack  of  skill,  there  would  be  no  need  of  force  to 
hold  the  position  of  natural  monopoly.  The  perpetual  de- 
fiance of  the  law  in  order  to  terrorize  non-union  men  would 
have  no  reason  for  its  existence;  and  the  worst  phases  of 
unionism  would  disappear.  Such  a  consummation  alone 
would  be  worth  infinite  pains;  but  if  it  should  come  in  con- 


70  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

nection  with  a  policy  which  is  morally  certain  to  improve  the 
condition  of  the  workmen,  not  to  reach  out  for  it  is  little 
short  of  crime. 

3.  As  another  consequence  of  the  new  principle  the 
unionist  would  find  himself  and  his  comrades  steadily  gain- 
ing a  higher  standard  of  living  without  resort  to  the  artificial 
methods  of  politics.  Legislation  would  not  be  needed  to 
fight  against  the  results  of  the  oversupply  of  labor.  Like 
ordinary  business  men,  the  unionists  would  find  their  affairs 
peacefully  settled  in  the  arena  of  industry  by  permanent 
forces,  and  not  in  the  uncertain  strife  of  legislatures  and 
political  conventions,  in  which  they  are  likely  to  be  outwitted 
by  clever  party  leaders.  And  yet  the  workmen  would  retain 
in  their  organized  unions  the  power  to  command  justice 
from  those  employers  who  are  unjust. 

4.  The  new  policy  would  insure  community  of  interest 
between  employer  and  employe.  This  objective  is  so  impor- 
tant, it  has  been  so  outrageously  ignored  in  countless  labor 
struggles,  that  to  attain  it  would  almost  be  like  the  millen- 
nium; and  yet,  instead  of  being  moonshine,  it  is  simple  com- 
mon sense.  If  the  laborers  knew  and  acted  upon  the  fact 
that  skill  and  goodwill  were  reasons  why  employers  could 
pay  better  wages,  the  whole  face  of  the  present  situation 
would  be  changed.  If  it  were  objected  that  the  unfair  and 
grasping  employer  would  pocket  the  surplus  due  to  the  im- 
proved productivity  of  the  laborers,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  unions  still  retain  their  power  of  collective  bar- 
gaining. But,  of  course,  the  unions  must  not  believe  that 
demands  can  be  made  for  advances  of  an  unlimited  kind  far 
beyond  the  services  rendered  to  production  of  anj-  one 
agent,  such  as  labor. 

The  new  proposals  would  also  completely  remove  the 
disastrous  tendency  to  make  work.  If  men  obtain  payment 
in  proportion  to  their  productivity,  the  greater  *the  product 
the  higher  the  wages;  for  this  has  been  the  reading  of  eco- 
nomic history,  no  matter  how  individuals  here  and  there  pro- 
test. Hence  the  result  would  be  lower  expenses  of  produc- 
tion, a  fall  in  the  prices  of  staple  goods,  and  a  generally  in- 
creased welfare  among  those  classes  whose  satisfactions 
have  been  increased. 


TRADE  UNIONS  71 

Not  only  would  the  consumer  be  benefited,  but  the  in- 
creased productivity  of  industry  would  enable  the  home 
producer  to  sell  his  goods  cheaper  in  foreign  markets.  As 
things  are  going  now,  the  hindrances  to  production  and  mak- 
ing work  by  unions  is  threatening  to  contract  our  foreign 
trade.  The  new  policy  proposed  to  the  unions  would  there- 
fore aid  the  United  States  in  keeping  its  present  advantages 
in  the  field  of  international  competition. 


LAWS  AND  COURT  DECISIONS 

Current  Literature.  46:  127-32.  February,  1909. 

Contempt  of  Samuel  Gompers. 

In  the  city  of  St.  Louis  is  a  manufacturing  plant  calle<l 
the  Bucks  Stove  and  Range  Company.  It  has  a  capital  of 
one  million  dollars,  and  employs  750  men.  Its  president, 
J.  W.  Van  Cleave,  is  also  president  of  the  iManufacturers' 
Association.  It  has  an  "open  shop" — that  is,  it  employs  both 
union  and  non-union  labor.  In  the  nickel-plating  depart- 
ment the  thirty-five  union  men  had  a  dispute  with  their  em- 
ployer over  the  hours  of  labor.  There  was  up  to  this  time' 
a  standing  agreement  to  arbitrate  such  disputes,  but  this  dis- 
pute was  not  arbitrated.  A  strike  ensued.  The  contest  fol- 
lowed much  the  usual  line  of  such  contests,  until  it  was 
acted  upon  by  the  Federation  of  Labor,  which  endorsed  the 
cause  of  the  union  men  and  ordered  a  boycott  of  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  Bucks  Stove  and  Range  Company.  The  com- 
pany took  the  case  to  court,  claiming  that  such  a  boycott  is 
an  illegal  conspiracy  in  restraint  of  trade.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia  decided  against  the  labor 
men,  and  issued  a  preliminary  injunction  against  their  adver- 
tising the  company  in  the  Federation's  "We  don't  patronize" 
list,  and  against  their  further  interference  with  the  business 
of  the  company  bj'^  means  of  request  or  advice  to  others  not 
to  buy  its  wares.  This  injunction  was  later  made  perma- 
nent. The  labor  leaders,  claiming  that  the  injunction  inter- 
fered with  their  constitutional  rights  in  forbidding  them  to 
advise  or  request  others  not  to  buy  the  company's  wares, 
refused  to  obey  it.  They  were  accordingly  cited  before  the 
court  for  contempt,  found  guilty,  and  sentenced  as  already 
stated.  The  political  issue  concerning  court  injunctions,  that 
figured  so  largely  in  the  recent  presidential  campaign,  drew 
its   vitality   chiefly   from   this   case.     A    considerable    number 


74  SELECTED  ARTICLES 


of  bills  are  now  before  Congress  for  changes  in  the  statutes 
regarding  injunctions,  and  an  important  congressional  dis- 
cussion of  this  particular  case  is  almost  certain  to  be  the 
result,  whenever  those  bills  come  up  for  consideration  in  the 
sessions  at  Washington. 

It  is  never  an  easy  thing  to  reduce  a  contest  of  this  kind 
to  its  simplest  elements.  In  this  case  the  equity  of  the  situa- 
tion lies  chiefly  in  the  determination  of  this  one  point — 
whether  the  court  that  granted  the  restraining  order  went  too 
far  and  forbade  not  simply  a  "secondary  boycott,"  but  also 
a  perfectly  legal  exercise  of  the  right  of  the  labor  union  men 
to  agree  among  themselves  not  to  purchase  the  company's 
wares,  and  to  request  their  friends  to  do  the  same.  The 
language  of  the  court,  in  granting  the  preliminary  injunction, 
concedes  the  latter  right.     Says  Judge  Gould: 

"Defendants  have  the  right,  either  individually  or  collectively, 
to  sell  their  labor  to  whom  they  please,  on  such  terms  as  they 
please,  and  to  decline  to  buy  pJaintiflf's  stoves;  they  also  have  the 
right  to  decline  to  traffic  witli  de.ilers  who  handle  plaintiff's 
stoves.  But  Sailor  Bros.,  for  instance,  have  an  equal  right  to 
buy  the  plaintiff's  stoves,  and  plaintiff  has  an  equal  right  to  sell 
said  stoves  to  Sailor  Bros.,  and  when  defendants  and  those  asso- 
ciated with  them  combine  to  interfere  with  or  obstruct,  without 
justifiable  cause,  the  freedom  of  buying  and  selling  which  should 
exist  between  plaintiff  and  Sailor  Bros.,  they  infringe  upon  the 
rights  of  both  and  do  an  unlawful  act.  The  same  principle  which 
is  the  basis  of  their  trade  freedom  is  also  the  basis  of  the  free- 
dom of  plaintiff  and  Sailor  Bros,  to  deal  with  each  other  untram- 
me!ed   by   defendants." 

In  arguing  the  case  for  the  labor  leaders,  in  the  recent  con-' 
tempt  proceedings,  ex-Judge  Parker,  their  attorney,  seems 
to  approve  the  positions  as  above  stated  by  the  court.  It 
was  not  so  much  this  particular  ruling,  he  says,  that  seemed 
to  his  clients  the  most  serious  injury,  but  "a  feature  of  the 
order  that  was  not  discussed  in  the  opinion,"  and  which  is 
described  by  Mr.  Parker  as  "a  command  that  they  shall  not 
discuss  that  decision,  that  there  shall  lie  no  longer  freedom 
of  speech,  that  they  shall  not  tell  their  organizations  about 
it,  about  what  has  happened  and  what  the  court  has  decided; 
practically,  that  they  shall  not  go  to  Congress  and  ask  for 
legislation  relieving  them  from  what  they  regard  as  an  im- 
proper law;  that  they  shall  not  write  editorials  about  it." 
Such  an  order,  he  insists,  is  "absolutely  void."  because  it 
oflfends   against    the    federal    Constitution.     Even    an    act   of 


TRADE  UNIONS  75 

Congress  to  that  effect  would  be  void,  and  equally  so  a  court 
decree. 

This  is  the  crux  of  the  whole  question,  whether  Messrs. 
Gompers,  Mitchell  and  Morrison,  in  their  actions  after  the 
court's  decree  was  rendered,  disobeyed  any  part  of  the  order 
except  a  part  that  was  void  by  reason  of  being  unconstitu- 
tional. After  the  preliminary  injunction  was  issued,  Mr. 
Gompers,  in  a  newspaper  interview,  said:  "When  it  comes  to 
a  choice  between  surrendering  my  rights  as  a  free  American 
citizen  or  violating  the  injunction  of  the  courts,  I  do  not' 
hesitate  t.o  say  that  I  shall  exercise  my  rights  as  between 
the  two."'  The  name  of  the  Bucks  Stove  and  Range  Com- 
pany continued  to  appear  in  the  organ  of  the  Federation, 
"edited  by  Mr.  Gompers,  on  the  "unfair  list,"  until  the  per- 
manent injunction  was  made,  and  even  after  that  date  bound 
volumes  of  The  Federationist  containing  copies  with  the  "un- 
fair list"  in,  were  sold  and  distributed,  and  thousands  of 
copies  of  the  proceedings  of  .the  national  convention  con- 
taining notice  of  the  boycott  were  published.  In  The  Pcdcra- 
tiouist,  moreover,  continued  to  appear  notices  like   this  : 

"Bear  in  mind  that  an  injunction  by  a  court  in  no  way  com- 
pels Labor  or  Labor' .s  friends  to  buy  tlie  product  of  the  Van 
(."leave  Bucks  Stove  and  Range  Company  of  St.  Louis. 

"Fellow-workers,  be  true  and  helpful  to  yourselves  and  to 
eacli  other.  Remember  that  united  effort  in  cause  of  right  and 
justice  must   triumph." 

And  in  a  speech  in  New  York  City,  made  after  the  per- 
manent injunction  was  issued,  Mr.  Gompers  spoke  as  follows: 
"They  tell  us  that  we  must  not  boycott.  Well,  if  the  boycott 
is  illegal  we  wont  boycott.  But  I  have  no  knowledge  that  any 
luw  has  been  passed  or  any  order  issued  by  any  court  compelling 
us  to  buy,  for  instance,  a  range,  ■  or  a  stove  from  the  Buck's 
Stove  and  Range  Company.  You  know  that  myself  and  several 
are  enjoined  from  telling  you,  and  we  are  not  prepared  to  tell 
you,    that   the   Bucks    Stove  and    Range    Company   is   unfair." 

The  judge  before  whom  the  contempt  proceedings  were 
heard  was  not  the  same  as  the  judge  who  issued  the  injunc- 
tion. Judge  Wright,  who  decided  the  contempt  case,  is  a 
Roosevelt  appointee,  a  lifelong  friend  of  President-elect  Taft, 
and  also  a  friend  of  Senator  Foraker,  who  requested  his  ap- 
pointment by  the  President  several  years  ago.  Mis  decision 
in  the  case  covers  seventy-five  typewritten  pages,  and  its 
language  is  very  severe.  Mr.  Gompers's  acts  are  described 
as   done   "in  wilful   disobedience   and   deliberate  violation  of 


76  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  injunction,  and  for  the  purpose  of  inciting  and  accomplish- 
ing the  violation  generally  and  in  pursuance  of  the  original 
common  design  of  himself  and  confederates  to  bring  about 
the  breach  of  plaintiff's  existing  contracts  with  others,  de- 
>prive  the  plaintiff  of  property  (the  goodwill  of  its  business) 
without  due  process  of  law,  restrain  comm,erce  among  the 
several  states."  The  general  tenor  of  the  decision — and  its 
striking  literary  style — may  be  gathered  from  the  following 
extract: 

"The  position  of  the  respondents  involves  ciuestions  vital  to 
the  preservation  of  social  order,  questions  which  smite  the  foun- 
dations of  civil  government,  and  upon  which  tlie  supremacy  of 
the  law  over  anarchy  and   riot  verily  depends. 

"Are  controversies  to  bo  determined  in  tribunals  formally 
constituted  by  the  law  of  the  land  for  that  purpose,  or  shall 
each  who  falls  at  odds  with  another  take  his  own  furious  way? 
Are  causes  pending  In  courts  to  be  decided  by  courts  for  liti- 
gants, or  the  view  of  each  distempered  litigant  Imposed? 

"Are  decrees  of  courts  to  look  for  their  execution  to  the 
supremacy  of  law  or  tumble  in  the  wake  of  unsuccessful  suitors 
who  overset  them  and  lay  about  the  matter  with  their  own  hands 
In  turbulence  proportioned   to  the  frenzy  of  their  disappointment?" 

As  for  freedom  of  speech,  Judge  Wright  declares  that 
the  federal  Constitution  guarantees  "only  that  in  so  far  as 
the  federal  government  is  concerned,  its  Congress  shall  not 
abridge  it,  and  leaves  the  subject  to  the  regulation  of  the 
several  states,  where  it  belongs."  The  question  involved  in 
the  case,  he  thinks,  is  whether  tlic  tribunal  of  a  certain  class 
or  the  tribunals  of  the  whole  people  shall  be  supreme — ""the 
supremacy  of  law  over  the  rabble  or  its  prostration  under 
the  feet  of  the  disordered  throng."  After  sentence  was  de- 
clared, and  an  appeal  from  the  decision  was  taken,  the  labor 
leaders  were  released  on  bail.  President  Roosevelt  was 
urged  to  grant  a  pardon  to  the  three  men,  on  the  ground 
that  their  sentences  are  extretne.  He  issued  a  statement  to 
the  effect  that  the  matter  could  not  properly  come  before 
him  for  consideration  as  long  as  there  is  an  appeal  pending 
and  the  courts  have  not  finished  with  the  case.  The  appeal 
can  hardly  be  argued  before  March  4,  and  the  request  for  a 
pardon  must  then,  of  course,  come  before  President  Tafl. 
The  attorney  for  the  Bucks  Stove  and  Range  Company  con- 
tends, however,  that  the  President  has  no  power  to  issue  .1 
pardon  in  this  case,  since  the  offence  committed  is  in  con- 
nection with  a  civil  case,  and  the  President's  power  to  par- 
don is  limited  to  offences  against  the  United  States. 


Trade  unions  ^^ 

The  spirit  in  which  the  three  men  are  regarded  in  labor 
union  circles  is  well  illustrated  in  the  following  words  from 
a  letter  to  Mr.  Gompers  from  the  executive  committee  of  the 
New  York  State  Federation:  "History  is  replete  with  hero- 
ism displayed  by  men  and  women  who  forget  self  in  a  grand 
endeavor  to  ameliorate  the  conditions  of  the  common  people, 
and  thousands  of  those  who  now  cry  out  against  methods 
used  by  organized  labor  are  beneficiaries  of  the  successful 
efforts  put  forth  by  the  martyrs  who  have  gone  before.  So 
will  millions  yet  unborn  benefit  by  the  sacrifices  now  being 
made  by  you  and  your  compatriots."  Tlie  Socialist  press, 
usually  bitterly  hostile  to  Mr.  Gompers,  has  only  words  of 
praise  for  his  present  stand,  and  of  condemnation  for  the 
court.  Victor  L.  Berger.  of  the  Milwaukee  Social  Democratic 
Herald,  writes :  "The  only  way  to  resist  is — to  resist.  Let  every 
labor  paper  in  the  country  print  the  boycott  list,  including  the 
boycott  on  the  Buck  Stove  company,  which  ought  to  be  given 
special  prominence.  Am  willing  that  the  Herald  shall  do  so. 
However,  in  order  to  make  it  effective,  all  the  labor  papers 
must  take  concerted  action."  ■ 

It  can  not  be  said,  however,  that  the  daily  press  of  the 
country  manifest  much  solicitude  for  Mr.  Gompers  and  his 
friends.  The  Baltimore  American  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  in  the  original  proceeding  the  punishment  was  not  even 
a  fine.  Employers  of  labor,  it  says,  can  with  greater  justice 
complain  of  the  leniency  of  the  court  than  the  labor  leaders 
can  have  for  complaint  of  undue  harshness.  It  thinks  that 
the  proof  of  disobedience  was  clear  even  in  the  matter  of 
the  "secondary  boycott"  (boycott  of  others  not  a  party  to 
the  dispute  who  continue  to  trade  with  the  party  that  is  list- 
ed as  "unfair"),  which  was  more  vigorously  prosecuted  after 
the  decree  than  before.  Says  the  New  York  Tribune :  "They 
set  themselves  up  over  the  courts  as  an  authority  on  the  Con- 
stitution, but  their  pretext  that  the  constitutional  guarantee 
of  free  speech  and  a  free  press  insured  the  right  to  destroy 
reputations  and  property  as  they  were  doing  is  the  flimsiest 
possible.  ...  If  they  stood  for  a  better  cause  they  would 
still  deserve  exemplary  punishment.  But  they  stand  for  a 
bad  cause — in  particular  a  boycott  in  support  of  a  local  union 
which  violated  its  contract,  and  in  general  a  combination  to 


78  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

force  the  preference  of  its  members  to  all  workers  excluded 
from  its  rolls."  The  Kansas  City  Times  thinks  the  court's 
point  is  unanswerable — that  even  if  an  error  is  committed 
in  a  decree  it  is  imperative  to  the  welfare  of  society  that  it 
be  obeyed.  "Courts,"  it  remarks,  "are  not  above  criticism, 
but  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  criticism  of  judicial 
action  and  open  defiance  of  a  court  decree." 

The  most  common  criticism  of  the  attitude  of  the  labor 
leaders  is  that  they  had  a  right  to  appeal  but  no  right  to 
disobey.  Says  the  Philadelphia  Record:  "If  they  were  con- 
vinced of  error  in  the  application  of  the  law  or  injustice  in 
its  operation,  they  should  have  sought  their  remedy  in  ap- 
peal to  the  higher  courts  or  to  federal  and  state  legislatures 
for  corrective  statutory  regulation.  That  way  is  open  to  all. 
In  putting  the  Eederation  of  Labor  in  opposition  to  the 
judicial  enforcement  of  the  law  they  make  a  tactical  mistake. 
The  Eederation  of  Labor  is  not  a  law  unto  itself."  The  New 
York  Press,  one  of  the  most  radical  of  the  dailies,  takes  the 
same  view.  It  says:  "Very  clear  was  the  real  issue — the 
issue  on  which  Gompers  and  his  associates  were  found 
gyilty.  It  was,  and  must  ever  be,  that  in  laying  down  the 
law  the  court  cannot  be  overruled  by  an  individual.  The 
private  individual  in  a  community  of  law  and  government 
can  never  have  the  privilege  of  refusing  to  obey  the  man- 
date of  the  courts."  The  Philadelphia  Ledffcr  thinks  that 
nobody  desires  to  see  the  labor  leaders  actually  serve  out 
their  sentences,  since  "the  great  object  sought  in  the  dispute 
has  been  already  attained."  The  New  York  Sun  for  several 
days  after  the  decision  was  announced  printed  at  the  head  of 
its  editorial  page  utterances  by  President  Roosevelt  in  op- 
position to  the  boycott,  among  them  the  following  from  a 
letter  to  Senator  Knox,  October  Ji,  igo8:  "The  blacklist  and 
the  secondary  boycott  are  two  of  the  most  cruel  forms  of 
oppression  ever  devised  by  the  wit  of  man  for  the  infliction 
of  suffering  on  his  weaker  fellows." 

What  comes  the  nearest  to  support  of  the  labor  leaders 
in  their  contention  that  we  can  find  in  an  influential  daily 
paper  is  an  editorial  in  the  Springfield  Republican.  It  re- 
grets the  temper  shown  by  Judge  Wright  and  "the  extremity 
of  his  language,"  but  it  admits  that  no  other  decision  could 


TRADE    UNIONS  79 

be  expected  since  the  order  of  the  court  "had  been  openly 
and  wantonly  disobeyed."  It  is  only  by  going  back  to  the 
injunction  itself,  this  paper  thinks,  that  any  material  can  be 
found  upon  which  to  hang  an  argument.  As  it  understands 
the  injunction,  it  applied  not  only  to  the  secondary  boycott 
but  to  the  boycott  in  its  most  simple  and  inoffensive  form — 
a  form  that  did  not  include  acts  of  intimidation  or  violence. 
Reasoning  from  this  understanding  of  the  case — which  is  at 
variance  with  the  utterances  already  quoted  of  Judge  Gould 
in  granting  the  injunction — The  Republican  goes  on  to  say: 

"To  all  appearances  the  injunction  in  thfs  case  enforces  a 
principle  which  would  make  it  decidedly  dangerous  for  two  or 
more  persons  to  agree,  upon  any  grievance,  to  cease  patronizing 
a  merchant  or  manufacturer — particularly  to  publish  or  spread 
the  report  of  their  action.  Thus  the  case  may  easily  involve 
that  gross  abuse  of  the  power  of  the  equity  court  which  has  be- 
come so  common  and  the  subject  of  so  much  agitation.  This 
case,  moreover,  raises  a  question  of  the  freedom  of  speech  and 
of  the   press,   which   cannot  be  overlooked.  .   .    . 

"The  courts  are  reducing  oUr  boasted  freedom  and  regard  for 
the  weaker  industrial  classes  to  a  strange  level  compared  with 
what  obtains  in  monarchical  England.  They  have  been  going 
too  far;  they  will  have  to  recede — at  least  until  our  society 
has  adopted  substitute  measures  for  the  due  protection  of  the 
laboring  masses." 

One  other  interesting  stateme'nt  on  the  labor  side  of  the 
case  comes,  strangely  enough,  from  Mr.  Van  Cleave  himself, 
who  was  the  plaintiff  in  this  case.  A  number  of  the  laboF 
leaders  refer  with  bitterness  to  the  fact  that  while  the  labor 
unions  are  enjoined  from  using  the  boycott,  the  employers 
have  not  been  stopped  by  the  courts,  and  perhaps  can  not 
be,  from  applying  the  black  list  to  employees.  Mr.  Van 
Cleave  also  looks  upon  his  side  of  the  case,  and  attributes  the 
existence  of  the  boycott  more  to  unfair  employers  than  to 
unfair  labor  unions.  Writing  in  American  Industries,  he 
says:  "Let  me  repeat  here  what  I  have  often  said  before, 
that  I  am  just  as  much  opposed  to  the  greedy  and  tyrannical 
employers,  outside  as  well  as  inside  the  trusts,  as  I  am  to 
the  boycotters.  They  have  done  much  to  incite  boycotting 
and  the  other  vices  which  are  perpetrated  by  many  of  the 
labor  unions.  These  recreant  employers  numerically  com- 
prise only  a  small  proportion  of  their  guild,  but  their  prac- 
tices have  injured  every  worthy  employer  in  the  country. 
In  fact,  I  condemn  them  more  than  I  do  the  objectionable 
labor  unionists,  for  they  stand  higher  socially,  they  are  bet- 


8o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ter  educated,  and  consequently  better  conduct  is  expected  of 
them." 

Forum.  42:  535-51.  December,   1909. 

Organized  Labor  and  Court  Decisions.     James  Boyle. 

Conspiracies,  Strikes  and  Lockouts. 

The  first  trial  in  America  under  the  old  common  law  of 
England  against  trade  combinations  was  in  New  York,  when 
a  number  of  journeymen  bakers  were  convicted  of  conspir- 
ing not  to  bake  bread  until  their  wages  were  raised.  There 
is,  however,  no  record  of  any  sentence  having  been  passed 
upon  them.  The  next  case  is  an  historic  one,  as  being  the 
first  in  America  in  which  there  are  complete  records.  It  is 
that  of  the  boot  and  shoemakers  of  Philadelphia,  in  1806. 
The  defendants  were  indicted  for: 

First.  Conspiring  to  Increase  their  wages  as  cordwainers 
[shoemakers]. 

Second.  Conspiring  to  prevent  by  threats,  menaces  and  other 
unlawful  means  other  workmen  from  working,  except  at  wages 
they  had  fixed. 

Third.  I'niting  themselves  into  a  club  and  combination,  mak- 
ing and  ordaining  imhiwful  and  arbitrary  by-laws,  rules,  and  or- 
ders amongst  themselves,  and  thereby  governing  themselves  and 
other  cordwainers,  and  unlawfully  and  unjustly  exacting  great 
sums  of  money,  and  conspiring  that  they  would  not  work  for  any 
master  or  person  who  should  employ  cordwainers  who  should 
Infringe  or  break  the  rules,  orders  or  by-laws  of  the  club,  and 
by  threats,  menaces  and  other  injuries,  preventing  other  cord- 
wainers from  working  for  such  master,  and  in  pursuance  of 
such  coml)lnatlon  refusing  to  work  at  the  usual  rates  and  prices 
paid  cordwainers,  to  the  damage  of  the  masters,  the  common- 
wealth,   and    other    cordwainers. 

The  jury  returned  a  verdict  of  guilty,  and  the  defendants 
wore  each  fined  eight  dollars  and  costs. 

The  next  important  case  is  that  of  the  journeymen  cord- 
wainers (shoemakers)  of  New  York,  or  The  People  of  the 
State  of  New  York  v.  Melvin  et  ai.  in  1809.  before  the 
Mayor  of  the  city.     They  were  indicted: 

First.  For,  In  brief,  unlawfully,  perniciously,  and  deceitfully 
organizing  themselves  into  a  club  or  combination,  and  making 
unlawful  by-laws,  rules  and  orders  among  themselves,  and  other 
workmen  in  the  cordwainers'  art.  and  extorting  large  sums  of 
money,  and  by  force  and  arms  unlawfully  assembling  together 
and  conspiring  not  to  work  for  any  master  or  other  person  who 
should  employ  workmen.  Journeymen  or  any  other  person  In  the 
said  art  who  were  not  members  of  their  club,  after  notice  given 
to  discharge    such   workmen   from    his   employ. 


TRADE  UNIONS  8i 

Second.  For  conspiring  togetlier  not  to  work  for  any  master 
or  person  whatsoever  in  the  said  art  who  should  employ  any 
workmen   who  infringed  or  broke  any  of  tlielr  rules,  etc. 

Third.  For  conspiring  not  to  work  for  any  master  or  person 
who  should  employ  any  workmen  who  broke  any  of  their  rules 
or  by-laws,  unless  the  workmen  so  offending  shall  pay  to  the 
club  such  Hne  as  should  be  assessed  against  him,  and  that  in 
particular  they  would  not  work  for  James  Corwin  and  Charles 
Aimes,  because  they  employed  Edward  Whitess,  a  cordwainer, 
wlio  had  broken  one  of  their  rules,  and  refused  to  pay  a  fine  of 
two  dollars   therefor. 

Fouith.  That  they  wickedly,  unjustly  and  unlawfully  con- 
spirt'd  to  impoverish  by  indirect  means  said  Whitess,  and  hinder 
him  from  following  his  trade,  and  did  hinder  him  from  following 
it,   and   did   greatly   impoverish    him. 

Fifth.  For  conspiring  and  agreeing  by  indirect  means  to 
prejudice  and  impoverish  Whitess,  and  prevent  him  from  exer- 
cising  his   trade. 

Sixth.  For  conspiring  not  to  work  for  the  customary  wages 
l)aid  cordwainers,  and  to  demand  and  extort  for  their  labor  in 
their   said  art  great   sums  of   money. 

Seventh.  Conspiring  to  unjustly  and  oppressively  increase 
tlieii-  own  and  the  wages  of  other  workmen,  and  that  they  would 
by  threats  and  other  unlawful  means  prevent  or  endeavor  to  pre- 
vent  other    cordwainers    from   working   at   lower    rates. 

Eighth.  Conspiring  that  they  would  not  work  for  any  mas- 
ter who  should  have  more  than  two  apprentices  at  the  same  time 
to  learn  the  art  of  cordwaining. 

Ninth.  Combining  by  indirect  means  to  prejudice  and  im- 
poverisli  certain  master  shoemakers  and  prosecutors  of  the  in- 
dictment. 

The  jury  convicted  the  defendants,  who  were  fined  one 
dollar  each,  and  costs.  In  passing  sentence,  the  Mayor 
observed  that  the  novelty  of  the  case,  and  the  general  con- 
duct of  the  body  of  cordwainers,  inclined  the  court  to  believe 
that  they  had  erred  from  a  mistake  of  the  law,  and  from 
supposing  that  they  had  rights  upon  which  to  found  their 
proceedings.  That  they  had  equal  rights  with  all  other  mem- 
bers of  the  community  was  undoubted,  and  they  had  also 
the  right  to  meet  and  regulate  their  concerns,  and  to  ask 
for  wages,  and  to  work  or  refuse;  but  that  the  means  they 
used  were  of  a  nature  too  arbitrary  and  coercive,  and  which 
went  to  deprive  their  fellow-citizens  of  rights  as  precious 
as  any  thej'  contended  for. 

The  different  states  have  laws  recognizing  the  rights  of 
labor  to  organize  and  attempt  peacefully  to  persuade  others 
from  working,  but,  in  the  main  (except  in  the  direction  in- 
dicated), the  old  civil  law  of  England  still  stands  as  the  law 
of  the  United  States,  particularly  as  regards  the  civil  liability 
of  strikers.  Then  there  are  federal  statutes,  which  make  it 
an    offence    to    obstruct    the    United    States    mails; — and    the 


82  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

vigorous  action  of  President  Cleveland  in  the  Pullman- 
railway  strike,  at  Chicago,  in  1894,  shows  how  effectively 
the  strong  arm  of  the  national  government  can  be  used  in 
certain  emergencies  against  even  the  so-called  "rights"  of 
labor.  Another  instrument  of  regulation  as  to  trade  unions 
is  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law  of  1890,  which  is  occasionally 
invoked  against  trade  unions  as  being  "in  restraint  of  trade." 
It  is  a  fact  that  at  the  present  time  the  trade  unions  of 
Great  Britain  are  in  a  far  more  favorable  position  as  re- 
gards their  legal  status  than  are  the  unions  of  America. 
There  is,  indeed,  almost  an  universal  opinion  in  England, 
outside  the  membership  of  the  trade  unions  themselves, 
that  the  recent  law  exempting  trade  union  funds  from  liabil- 
ity for  damages,  and  granting  privileges  to  union  men  as  to 
"picketing,"  etc.,  go  too  far  in  the  direction  of  "special 
privileges."  It  must  also  be  said  that  the  American  courts 
are  far  more  inclined  to  grant  injunctions  against  labor 
than  are  the  British  courts. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor 

The  national  federation  of  individual  unions  of  diffeient 
trades  is  an  American  idea,  as  pointed  out  by  John  Mitchell, 
the  noted  labor  leader,  and  one  of  the  defendants  in  the 
contempt  case.  The  present  American  Federation  of  Labor 
is  the  culmination  of  many  efforts  in  the  past.  There  had 
been  a  number  of  attempts  to  confederate  local  unions, 
principally  liy  municipal  groups,  and  there  had  been  several 
failures  in  the  direction  of  national  combinations.  The  most 
ambitious — and  for  a  time  the  most  successful — of  these 
attempts  at  national  organization  of  labor,  was  "The  Noble 
Order  of  Knights  of  Labor."  Its  failure  seems  to  have 
been  owing  principally  to  the  fact  that  it' was  too  compre- 
hensive in  its  basis  of  membership,  and  that  it  disregarded 
trade  lines  and  sought  to  merge  all  trade  unions  into  one 
body;  but  the  organization  is  still  in  existence.  The  present 
I'"ederati6n  of  Labor  owes  its  origin  to  a  combination  of  the 
Knights  of  Industry  and  the  .Amalgamated  Labor  Union, 
which  latter  organization  was  composed  of  secedcrs  from 
the  Knights  of  Labor.  It  was  organized  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa., 
on  November  15,  1881,  and  was  originally  styled  "The   Fed- 


TRADE  UNIONS  83 

eration  of  Organized  Trades  and  Labor  Unions  of  the  United 
States  of  America  and  Canada."  It  is  said  that  its  member- 
ship started  with  a  quarter  of  a  million,  but  that  it  rapidly 
declined.  At  that  time  there  was  a  keen  rivalry  between  the 
Knights  of  Labor  and  the  individual  trade  unions,  turning 
on  the  fundamental  question  of  the  autonomy  of  each  union. 
By  1886,  the  Knights  of  Labor  had  reached  their  greatest 
numerical  strength.  In  the  same  year  the  Federation,  which 
had  been  formed  at  Pittsburgh  in  1881,  merged  at  Columbus, 
Ohio,  with  a  number  of  independent  trade  unions,  and  the 
combination  was  named  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
By  1890,  it  claimed  a  membership  of  a  quarter  of  a  million. 
In  1898,  the  membership  was  264,000;  in  1899.  it  was  334,100; 
in  1900,  515,400;  in  1901,  742,600;  in  1902,  957,500.  In  1904, 
there  were  118  international  unions  having  complete  juris- 
diction over  their  own  trades,  with  an  approximate  member- 
ship of  2,000,000,  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor.  The  Netv  York  World  Almanac  for  1909  gives  the 
following  particulars:  "The  Federation  is  composed  of  116 
national  and  international  unions,  representing  approximate- 
ly 27,000  local  unions,  38  state  branches,  587  city  central  un- 
ions, and  664  local  unions.  The  approximate  paid  member- 
ship is  1,540,000.  The  affiliated  unions  publish  about  245 
weekly  or  monthly  papers,  devoted  to  the  cause  of  labor. 
The  official  organ  is  the  American  Federationist,  edited  by 
Samuel  Gompers."  All  the  principal  trade  unions  of  the 
United  States  belong  to  the  Federation  with  the  exception 
of  the  following:  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union, 
the  Bricklayers'  and  the  Masons  Union,  the  Brotherhood  of 
of  Operative  Plasterers,  National  Association  of  Letter  Car- 
riers, National  Association  of  Steam  Fitters,  Stone  Masons' 
International  Union,  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  and  the 
following  "Brotherhoods,"  each  being  a  separate  union: 
Locomotive  Engineers,  Locomotive  Firemen,  Railroad 
Switchmen,  Railroad  Trainmen,  and  the  Railroad  Conductors' 
Order.  The  object  of  the  Federation  is  to  encourage  the 
formation  of  local  and  national  unions,  and  to  establish 
friendly  relations  between  the  various  national  and  interna- 
tional organizations  without  interfering  with  their  autonomy, 
to  encourage  the  sale  of  union-label  goods,  to  promote  the 


84  si:LiaTi:i)  artici.f.s 

labor  press,  to  secure  legislation  in  the  interest  of  the  work- 
ing masses,  and  to  influence  public  opinion,  by  peaceful  and 
legal  methods,  in  favor  of  organized  labor.  The  Federation 
is  debarred  by  its  constitution  from  directly  affiliating  itself 
with  political  parties. 

The  most  important  case  in  America  involving  thd  rights 
of  organized  labor  as  to  boycotting,  injunctions,  and  con- 
tempt of  court,  is  that  of  the  suit  of  the  Buck  Stove  and 
Range  Co.,  of  St.  Louis,  against  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  and  a  number  of  its  officials,  and  its  subsequent  de- 
velopments. This  case  will  undoubtedly  be  historic,  not 
only  on  account  of  the  importance  of  the  direct  results  of 
the  suit,  but  because  of  the  principles  of  law  decided;  and  it 
'may  be  also  be  historic  because  of  after-results,  as  regards 
the  relation  of  organized  labor  to  politics.  The  records  of 
the  case  are  very  voluminous,  but  the  main  incidents,  when 
separated  from  the  multitudinous  details,  are  simple,  and 
briefly  are  as  follows: 

The  Federation's  Boycott  Injunction  Contcnil>t  Case 

In  August,  1906,  some  metal  polishers  at  the  works  of  the 
complainant's  factory  struck.  Thereupon  the  Metal  Polish- 
ers' Union  declared  the  complainant  "unfair"  to  organized 
labor,  and  published  the  declaration  in  their  local  labor  jour- 
nal, issued  circulars  to  the  same  effect,  and  in  various  ways 
sought  to  "boycott"  complainant's  goods,  which  heretofore 
had  had  yearly  sales  amounting  to  $1,250,000,  throughout  the 
various  States  of  the  Union.  In  November,  1906,  the  St. 
Louis  Central  Trades  and  Labor  Union  endorsed  the  boy- 
cott. At  the  regular  annual  convention  of  the  American 
F'ederation  of  Labor,  in  November,  1906,  a  resolution  was 
adopted  endorsing  the  action  of  the  St.  Louis  labor  organiza- 
tions in  their  controversy  with  the  complainant,  and  ordering 
that  the  name  of  the  latter  be  published  in  the  "VVe  Don't 
Patronize''  list  of  the  American  Fedcrationist,  the  official  or- 
gan of  the  Federation,  One  of  the  methods  of  enforcing  the 
demands  of  the  F'ederation  is  the  systematic  use  of  the  boy- 
cott, for  which  there  is  the  most  thorough  plan.  The  Execu- 
tive Council  of  the  F'ederation  is  authorized  to  approve  of,  and 
declare  boycotts  at  intlividuals  and  concerns,  and  is  required 


TRADE  UNIONS  85 

to  present  at  each  annual  convention  a  printed  statement  of 
the  details  leading  up  to  any  pending  boycotts  approved  by 
it.  At  each  convention  the  President  of  the  Federation  ap- 
points a  committee  on  boycotts,  to  which  are  referred  all 
resolutions  relative  to  the  boycotting  of  individuals  and  con- 
cerns whose  business  is  to  be  attacked.  It  is  said  that  dur- 
ing the  twenty  years  of  its  existence  the  Federation  has  de- 
clared many  hundreds  of  boycotts,  there  having  been  over 
400  during  the  last  dozen  years.  These  boycotts,  it  seems, 
have  been  made  or  approved  and  prosecuted  by  the  Federa- 
tion in  response  to  the  application  of  individual  unions  af- 
filiated with  it.  At  the  convention  of  the  Federation  held  in 
1905  a  resolution  was  adopted  which  commenced  as  follows: 
''We  must  recognize  the  fact 'that  a  boycott  means  war,' and 
to  successfully  carry  out  a  war  we  must  adopt  the  tactics 
that  history  has  shown  are  most  successful  in  war.  The 
greatest  master  of  war  said  that  'war  was  the  trade  of  a  bar- 
barian, and  that  the  secret  of  success  was  to  concentrate  all 
your  forces  upon  one  point  of  the  enemy,  the  weakest,  if 
possible.' "  Adopting  this  principle,  the  Federation  recom- 
mended that  the  boycotting  tactics  should  be  concentrated 
upon  the  least  number  of  "unfair"  parties  that  was  possible. 
"One  would  be  preferable.  If  every  available  means  at  the 
command  of  the  State  federations  and  central  bodies  were 
concentrated  upon  one  such,  and  kept  up  until  successful, 
the  next  on  the  list  would  be  more  easily  brought  to  terms 
and  within  a  reasonable  time  none  opposed  to  fair  wages, 
conditions  or  hours  but  would  be  brought  to  see  the  error 
of  their  ways  and  submit  to  the  inevitable."  At  the  same 
convention  another  resolution  was  adopted  requiring  local 
organizations  that  had  induced  the  Federation  to  endorse 
boycotts  and  to  place  names  on  the  "We  Don't  Patronize" 
list,  to  report  the  situation  to  the  Executive  Council  of  the 
Federation  every  three  months,  it  to  be  stated  in  that  report 
what  efforts  were  being  taken  to  make  the  boycott  effectual. 
Failure  to  report  for  six  months  was  to  be  sufficient  cause 
to  remove  such  boycotts  from  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list. 
The  Federation's  rules  prescribe  that  no  boycott  shall  be 
endorsed  until  "after  due  investigation  and  attempted  settle- 
ment".    [In    this    particular    case    of    the    Buck    Stove    and 


86  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Range  Co.  there  is  a  conflict  of  testimony  upon  this  point.] 
But  after  an  individual  or  concern  has  been  declared  "unfair"' 
by  the  Council  of  the  Federation,  then  the  secretaries  of  all 
the  local  unions,  amounting  to  many  thousands,  are  notified 
to  read  the  pronouncement  out  at  a  meeting  of  each  union, 
and  to  have  the  reform  and  labor  press  publish  the  same; 
and  the  individual  or  firm  so  declared  to  be  "unfair"  has  its 
name  included  in  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list  published  in 
the  monthly  organ  of  the  Federation,  the  Federatiouist. 

In  March,  1907,  the  Executive  Council  of  the  Federation 
placed  the  complainant  and  its  products  on  the  "We  Don't 
Patronize"  list  of  the  Fcderationist,  and  a  circular  was  issued 
to  the  local  unions  calling  their  attention  to  this  action.  The 
effect  of  the  boycott  on  the  sale  of  the  stoves  and  ranges  of 
the  Buck  Company  was  immediate  and  far-reaching.  Deal- 
ers all  over  the  country  notified  the  company  that  owing  to 
the  pressure  and  threats  of  boycotts  on  themselves  by  the 
local  labor  unions  and  their  friends,  they  were  compelled  to 
cease  handling  the  goods  of  the  Buck  Company.  Com- 
plainant's suit  was  to  enjoin  this  boycott.  After  hearing 
upon  the  bill,  and  defendants'  return  to  the  rule  to  show 
cause,  an  injunction  pendente  Hie  was  granted ;  and  subse- 
quently a  decree  was  issued  that  the  defendants,  "their  and 
each  of  their  agents,  servants,  attorneys,  confederates,  and 
any  and  all  persons  acting  in  aid  of  or  in  conjunction  with 
them  or  any  of  them  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  perpetually 
restrained  and  enjoined  from  conspiring,  agreeing  or  com- 
bining in  any  manner  to  restrain,  obstruct  or  destroy  the 
business  of  the  complainant,  or  to  prevent  the  complainant 
from  carrying  on  the  same  without  interference  from  them 
or  any  of  them  .  .  .  and  from  printing,  issuing,  publishing 
or  distributing  through  the  mails,  or  in  any  other  manner, 
any  copies  or  copy  of  the  American  Federationist,  or  any 
other  printed  or  written  newspaper,  magazine,  circular,  letter 
or  other  document  or  instrument  whatsoever,  which  shall 
contain  or  in  any  manner  refer  to  the  name  of  the  complain- 
ant, its  business  or  its  product  in  the  'We  Don't  Patronize' 
list  of  the  defendants,  ...  or  which  contains  any  reference 
to  the  complainant,  its  business  or  product  in  connection 
with  the  term  'Unfair'  or  with  the  'We  Don't  Patronize'  list. 


TRADE  UNIONS  87 

or  with  any  other  phrase,  word  or  words  of  similar  import, 
and  from  publishing  or  otherwise  circulating,  whether  in 
writing  or  orally,  any  statement,  or  notice,  of  any  kind  or 
character  whatsoever,  calling  attention  to  the  complainant's 
customers,  or  of  dealers  or  tradesmen,  or  the  public,  to  any 
boycott  against  the  complainant." 

Two  things  may  be  observed:  First,  the  business-like  way 
in  which  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  declared  and 
prosecuted  boycotts.  Boycotts  are  often  called  "un-Ameri- 
can," but  the  defence  in  this  case  introduced  evidence  that 
in  Revolutionary  times  "The  True  Sons  of  Liberty"  boy- 
cotted those  who  continued  to  import  British  goods.  There 
was  prepared  a  list  of  the  names  of  those  "who  audaciously 
continue  to  counteract  the  united  sentiments  of  the  body  ot 
merchants  throughout  North  America;  by  importing  British 
goods  contrary  to  agreement."  And  one  of  these  lists  was 
posted  up  at  the  door  or  dwelling-house  of  each  offender, 
"as  a  warning  to  any  one  that  shall  affront  as  aforesaid." 
And  to  each  such  notice  was  a  further  notice:  "It  is  de- 
sired that  the  Sons  and  Daughters  of  Liberty  would  not  buy 
any  one  thing  of  him,  for  in  so  doing  they  will  bring  disgrace 
upon  themselves,  and  their  posterity,  forever  and  ever, 
Amen." 

The  second  thing  to  be  observed  is  the  sweeping  nature 
of  the  restraining  order  of  the  Court.  It  is  not  all  given 
above,  but  the  extracts  indicate  with  sufficient  fullness  its 
character. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  appealed  .against  this 
decree,  and  on  March  11,  1909,  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the 
District  of  Columbia  rendered  a  decision  which  sustained  but 
modified  it.  The  Court  of  Appeals  said  that  the  clean-cut 
question  was  whether  a  combination,  such  as  was  entered 
into  in  this  case — which  has  for  its  object  the  coercion  of  a 
given  firm  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  boycott — is 
lawful.  The  Court  remarked  in  its  presentation:  "In  our 
opinion,  it  is  more  important  to  wage-earners  than  to  em- 
ployers of  labor  that  we  declare  this  combination  unlawful, 
for  if  wage-earners  may  combine  to  interfere  with  the  lawful 
business  of  employers,  it  follows  that  employers  may  com- 
bine to  coerce  their  employees." 


88  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

The  Court  of  Appeals  defined  a  boycott  as  "a  combination 
to  harm  one  person  by  coercing  others  to  harm  him."  In  its 
opinion  the  combination  in  this  case  not  only  answered  this 
definition,  but  also  the  definition  of  a  common  law  conspir- 
acy. The  immediate  purpose  and  result  of  the  combination 
was,  the  Court  held,  to  interfere  with  complainant's  lawful 
business,  and  to  deprive  complainant  and  its  customers  of 
their  right  to  trade  intercourse.  If  the  immediate  object  was 
unlawful,  the  combination  was  unlawful.  That  no  physical 
coercion  was  practised  in  this  case  did  not  alter  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  Court,  since  restraint  of  the  mind,  as  the  evi- 
dence in  this  case  clearly  demonstrated,  was  just  as  potent 
as  a  threat  of  physical  violence. 

The  Trades  Dsputes  Act  passed  in  1906  by  the  British 
Parliament — which  was  quoted  by  the  judge  giving  an  opin- 
ion dissenting  from  the  majority  decision  of  the  Court — con- 
tains this  clause: 

An  act  done  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  or  combination  by 
two  or  more  persons  shall,  if  done  in  contemplation  or  furtherance 
of  a  trade  dispute,  not  be  actionable  unless  the  act,  if  done  with- 
out any  such  agreement  or  combination,  would  be  actionable. 

That  clause  in  the  British  Act  has  been  bitterly  criticised 
because  it  practically  places  trade  unionists  apart  from  their 
fellow-citizens  as  a  privileged  class  above  ordinary  law.  It  is 
interesting  to  compare  this  special  class-legislation  of  the 
British  Parliament  with  the  principles  laid  down  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  in 
this  case: 

The  contention  is  put  forward  that  inasmuch  as  each  member 
of  the  Federation  has  the  right  to  bestow  his  trade  where  he 
will,  according  to  his  whim  or  fancy,  it  cannot  be  unlawful  for 
a  combination  of  members  to  do  what  each  acting  separately  may 
do,  and  that,  therefore,  the  combination  may  lawfully  discontinue 
or  threatf'n  to  discontinue  business  intercourse  with  a  given  firm 
and  all  who  handle  its  product,  or,  to  state  the  proposition  blunt- 
ly,  that   the  boycott  as   previously   defined   is  lawful. 

To  admit  the  soundness  of  this  contention  is  to  give  legal  sup- 
port and  standing  to  an  engine  of  harm  and  oppression  utterly  at 
variance  with  the  spirit  and  theory  of  our  Institutions,  place  the 
weak  at  the  mercy  of  the  strong,  foster  monopoly,  permit  an 
unwarranted  Interference  with  the  natural  course  of  trade,  and 
deprive  the  citizen  of  the  freedom  guaranteed  him  by  the  Consti- 
tution. The  loss  of  the  trade  of  a  single  individual  ordinarily 
affects  a  given  dealer  very  little.  Being  discriminating,  the  pur- 
chasing public,  if  left  free  to  exercise  Its  own  judgment,  will 
not  act  arbitrarily  or  maliciously,  but  will  be  controlled  by  natural 
considerations.  But  a  powerful  combination  to  boycott  Immedi- 
ately deflects  the  natural  course  of  trade  and  ruin  follows  in 
its  wake   because   of   the   unlawful  design  of  the   conspirators   to 


TRADE  UNIONS  89 


coerce  or  destroy  the  object  of  their  displeasure.  In  other  words, 
it  is  the  conspiracy  and  not  natural  causes  that  is  responsible 
for  the  result.  FYom  time  immemorial  the  law  has  frowned  upon 
combinations  formed  for  the  purpose  of  doing  harm,  and  we 
thlnlc  public  policy  demands  that  such  a  combination  as  we  have 
found  to  exist  in  this  case  be  declared  unlawful. 

The  Court  next  takes  up  the  contention  of  the  defence 
that  the  decree  of  injunction  is  an  infringement  of  the  con- 
stitutional guaranty  of  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press, 
and  says: 

In  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  restrain  acts  in  furtherance  of  the 
boycott  we  do  not  think  it  constitutes  either  a  censorship  of 
the  press  or  an  abridgment  of  the  right  of  free  speech.  An  un- 
lawful combination  was  found  to  exist,  which,  unless  checked, 
would  destroy  complainant's  business  and  leave  [no]  adequate 
redress.  The  Court,  therefore,  very  properly  sought  to  restrain 
the  cause  of  the  mischief,  the  unlawful  combination.  The  "We 
Don't  Patronize"  or  "I'^nfair"  list  and  oral  declarations  of  the 
boycott  were  included  in  the  decree  because  they  were  among 
the  means   employed   in  carrying  out   the   unlawful  design.   .   .    . 

Oral  and  written  declarations  in  furtherance  of  a  conspiracy 
are  tentacles  of  the  conspiracy  and  must  be  treated  as  such  and 
not    as    independent    acts. 

Up  to  this  point  the  decree  of  injunction  was  sustained. 
But  part  of  the  decree  was  modified.  The  Court  of  Appeals 
goes  on  to  say: 

But  we  think  the  decree  in  this  case  goes  too  far  when  it 
enjoins  the  publication  or  distribution  through  the  mails  or 
otherwise  of  the  Federationist  or  other  periodicals  or  newspapers 
containing  any  reference  to  complainant,  its  business,  or  product, 
as  in  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  or  "Unfair"  list  of  the  defend- 
dants.  The  Court  below  found,  and  in  that  finding  we  concur, 
that  this  list  in  this  case  constitutes  a  talismanic  symbol  indi- 
cating to  the  membership  of  the  Federation  that  a  boycott  is  on 
and  should  be  observed.  The  printing  of  this  list,  therefore, 
was  what  the  Court  sought  to  prevent  and  what,  in  our  opinion, 
the  Court  had  power  to  prevent;  but  the  decree  should  stop  there 
and  not  attempt  to  regulate  the  publication  and  distribution  of 
other  matter  over  which  the  Court  has  no  control  .  .  .  for,  when 
the  conspiracy  is  at  an  end,  the  Federation  will  have  the  same 
right  that  anv  association  or  individual  now  has  to  comment 
upon  the  relations  of  complainants  with  its  employees.  It  is  the 
existence  of  the  conspiracy  that  warrants  the  court  in  prohibit- 
ing the  printing  of  this  list.  Manifestly,  when  the  conspiracy  ends 
the   prohibition   ought   also    to   end. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  decree  is  too  broad  in  other 
respects.  .  .  .  We  think  It  should  attempt  no  more  than  a  prohibi- 
tion of  the  boycott  and  the  means  of  carrying  it  on,  that  is,  the 
declarations  or  threats  of  boycott  or  other  manner  of  intimida- 
tion against  complainant's  patrons  or  those  handling  or  wishing 
to  purchase  its  product.  We  have  no  power  to  compel  the  defen- 
dants to  purchase  complainant's  stoves.  We  have  power  to  pre- 
vent defendants,  their  servants  and  agents,  from  preventing  oth- 
ers from  purchasing  them. 

For  the  reason  stated,  the  decree  was  modified  and  af- 
firmed   to   the   following   effect:      The    defendants   were — as 


90  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

were  their  agents,  servants,  and  confederates — perpetually 
restrained  and  enjoined  from  conspiring  or  combining  to 
boycott  the  business  or  product  of  complainant,  and  from 
threatening  or  declaring  any  boycott  against  said  business  or 
product,  and  from  aiding,  or  assisting  in  any  such  boycott, 
and  from  printing  the  complainant,  its  business  or  product,  in 
the  "Wc  Don't  Patronize"  or  "Unfair"  list  of  defendants  in 
furtherance  of  any  boycott,  or  from  referring,  either  in  print 
or  otherwise,  in  such  manner. 

The  second  of  the  concurring  judges,  in  a  separate  opin- 
ion, explained  that  he  believed  a  boycott  was  legal  when 
unaccompanied  with  threats  to  compel  others  to  join  them'in 
the  boycott. 

The  third  judge  dissented  from  part  of  the  modilicd  de- 
cree, although  he  agreed  that  the  combination  to  boycott 
became  unlawful  when  threats  or  coercion  was  used.  He 
held  that  there  was  no  power  to  restrain  the  publication  of 
which  complaint  was  made. 

Important  as  are  the  issues  involved  in  the  above  deci- 
sion, it  was  overshadowed — at  least  in  popular  estimation — 
by  an  issue  which  developed  while  the  case  was  pending, 
that  of  the  alleged  "contempt  of  Court"  on  the  part  of  cer- 
tain officials  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  by  vio- 
lating the  restraining  order  of  the  Court,  and  their  sentence 
to  imprisonment  for  this  offence  as  found  by  the  Court. 

The  Federation,  through  its  officers — and  particular!)' 
Samuel  Gompers,  the  President  of  the  Federation  and  the 
editor  of  its  organ,  the  I'cderationisI — at  all  times  took  the 
ground  that  the  injunction  prohibited  the  exercise  of  the 
constitutional  rights  of  free  speech  and  freedom  of  the  press, 
and  hence  was  null  and  void.  Both  editorially  and  on  the 
public  platform  he  discussed  the  principles  involved  in  this 
injunction,  and  protested  against  its  denial  of  constitutional 
rights,  as  he  claimed.  But  the  Court  found  that  he  and  two 
other  officials  of  the  Federation — Frank  Morrison,  the  Secre- 
tary, and  John  Mitchell,  a  Vice-President — were  guilty  of 
contempt  of  Court  in  violating  the  injunction.  The  original 
injunction  was  issued  by  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  District  of  Columbia  (Washington),  and  the  proceedings 
in  contempt  were  before  the  same  Court,  but  before  a  differ- 


TRADE  UNIONS  91 

ent  judge.  This  latter  judge  found  that  evidence  before  him 
showed  that  the  defendants  had  determined  to  violate  the 
injunction  if  it  was  issued,  and  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  the 
injunction  was  violated  both  by  publication  and  orally.  The 
defence  claimed  that  when  the  injunction  came  into  eflfect  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  complied  with  it,  and  re- 
moved the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company  from  the  "We 
Don't  Patronize"  list.  The  Court,  however,  found  that  the 
defendants  had  "rushed''  an  edition  of  the  Federationist 
through  the  mails,  in  order  to  have  the  list  in  circulation 
befote  the  date  of  the  injunction  taking  efifect,  and  that  by 
special  arrangement  of  type  of  ostensible  "news"  matter,  the 
enjoined  matter  had  in  effect  been  published,  and  the  same 
offence  had  been  committed  by  oral  announcements.  The 
Court  also  found  that  one  of  the  defendants  (John  Mitchell) 
had,  as  the  president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Amer- 
ica (he  also  being  one  of  the  vice-presidents  of  the  Federa- 
tion), a  number  of  times  declared  that  he  would  disobey  what 
he  considered  an  unlawful  injunction;  and  that  after  the  in- 
junction in  question,  he  presided  at  a  convention  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  at  which  a  resolution  was  passed  or- 
dering that  the  complainant  be  placed  upon  the  "Unfair"  list, 
and  imposing  a  fine  of  five  dollars  on  any  member  of  the 
union  who  purchased  the  complainant's  goods,  failing  to  pay 
which  fine  the  member  was  to  be  expelled  from  the  union. 
For  their  contempt  of  the  Court  in  disobeying  the  injunction, 
the  defendant  Morrison  was  sentenced  to  six  months  in  jail, 
Mitchell  to  nine  months,  and  Gompers  to  twelve  months. 

On  November  2,  1909,  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District 
of  Columbia  affirmed  the  judgment  of  Justice  Wright  as  to 
contempt;  and  unless  that  judgment  is  upset  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  or  the  President  interferes,  the 
defendants  must  go  to  jail. 

Unconstitutional   Labor   Laws 

In  all  the  history  of  trade  unionism  in  the  United  States 
there  has  been  nothing  which  has  created  such  a  deep-seated, 
widespread,  and  permanent  feeling  of  grievance  as  to  the 
question  of  its  legal  status  as  aflfected  by  the  decisions  of  the 
courts,  federal  and  state. 


92  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Within  the  recent  years  there  has  been  a  long  list  of  de- 
cisions by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  declaring 
certain  "labor  laws"  void  because  they  conflicted  with  the  fed- 
eral Constitution.  Many  similar  decisions  have  also  been 
given  by  state  courts.  And  there  is  a  still  longer  list  of  in- 
junctions by  courts  federal  and  state,  to  compel  trade  union- 
ists to  refrain  from  breaking  the  law  or  from  stepping  over 
the  limitations  imposed  by  the  Constitution,  federal  or  state, 
as  the  case  might  be — or  from  trespassing  on  the  rights  of 
others  as  guaranteed  by 'the  Constitution. 

There  are  several  phases  of  the  matter,  outside  the  merits 
of  the  cases — either  as  to  the  law  or  as  to  the  facts — which 
are  very  interesting.  The  first  is  regarding  a  written  consti- 
tution as  affecting  legislation.  In  his  last  annual  report  (No- 
vember, 1908)  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  Mr. 
Gompers,  the  president,  said:  "It  will  be  observed  that  what 
the  working  people  of  our  Republic  ask  at  the  hands  of  our 
Congress  is  fully  within  the  bounds  of  the  law  enacted  in  the 
monarchy  of  Great  Britain.  Recently  some  one  said  that 
such  a  law  could  be  enacted  by  the  British  Parliament,  be- 
cause special  legislation  is  permissible  and  even  natural, 
since  each  dominant  class  has  legislated  in  and  for  its  own 
interest,  while  in  our  country  we  have  a  written  Constitution 
forbidding  special  legislation.  .  .  .  Surely,  the  British  Parlia- 
ment, under  a  monarchy,  would  not  accord  special  privileges, 
and  special  rights,  to  give  to  the  workers  of  that  country  a 
power  and  a  privilege  to  exercise  such  activities  as  are  un- 
just or  harmful  to  the  people  or  the  institutions  of  that 
country." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  one  thing  which  reconciles 
the  majority  of  the  British  people  to  a  hereditary  House  of 
Lords  in  these  days  as  the  fear  that  a  one-chamber  Parlia- 
ment, under  the  domination  of  organized  labor,  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  Socialists,  would  not  only  pass  the  most 
extreme  communistic  and  class  legislation,  but  that  that 
legislation  would  grossly  violate  the  rights  of  minorities  and 
of  individuals. 

The  diflference  between  the  British  Parliament  and  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  is  this:  Parliament,  in  a  poli- 
tical and  constitutional  sense,  is  omnipotent,  with  only  revo- 


TRADE  UNIONS  93 

lution  or  civil  war  as  an  alternative.  Constitutionally,  Parlia- 
ment is  the  supreme  power,  the  court  of  last  resort  in  the 
British  Empire,  except  civil  war.  It  can  make  and  un- 
make the  sovereign;  it  can  define  the  conditions  of  the  loyalty 
of  the  citizens  of  the  empire  to  the  sovereign;  and  if  the 
sovereign  violates  the  terms  on  which  he  wears  the  crown 
the  citizen  is  absolved  from  allegiance.  Every  law  passed 
by  the  British  Parliament  is  constitutional.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  an  unconstitutional  law  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
if  it  is  passed  in  due  form.  The  British  Parliament  has  no 
Supreme  Court  to  review  its  legislation.  It  is  its  own  Su- 
preme Court.  It  is  a  favorite  nut  to  crack  among  the 
British  constitutionalists  as  to  how  far  the  sovereign  is  in- 
dependent of  Parliament;  but  in  a  practical  sense  Parliament 
is  supreme  even  over  the  sovereign — with  civil  war  as  the 
only  active  protest  left  against  Parliament.  Another  con- 
stitutional nut  to  crack  is  whether  Parliament  can  legislate 
itself  out  of  existence,  and  thus  bring  anarchy  into  being 
without  any  legislative  act  establishing  that  form — or  rather 
absence  of  form — of  government. 

Plence,  there  is  a  great  difference  between  the  condition  of 
validity  of  an  act  passed  by  the  federal  Congress  or  a  state 
legislature,  as  compared  with  one  passed  by  the  British  Par- 
liament. It  is  sometimes  said  that  an  Act  of  Congress  is 
never  valid  until  it  has  been  passed  upon  favorably  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  even  though  it  has 
passed  the  veto  prerogative  of  the  President — although,  of 
course,  an  act  is  to  be  considered  as  constitutional  until  it 
has  been  declared  otherwise  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

It  is  a  fact,  as  complained  of  by  the  president  of  the  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  that  the  British  Parliament  have  passed  a 
number  of  laws  in  the  interest  of  labor,  and  that  when  the 
Ameri<;an  Congress  has  passed  similar  laws  the  Supreme 
Court  has  declared  them  to  be  contrary  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  and,  therefore,  invalid.  Bnt  Mr.  Gom- 
pers  is  in  error  in  assuming  that  the  British  acts  were  not 
special  legislation  in  the  interest  of  one  class.  On  the  con- 
trary, a  number  of  these  labor  laws  were  avowedly  passed 
as  special  legislation  in  the  interest  of  one  class  as  against 
other  classes.     This  the  British  Parliament  can  do.  and  there 


94  '      SELECTED  ARTICLES 

is  none  to  say  it  nay,  except  the  electors  themselves  at  the 
next  election.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  federal  Congress 
and  the  several  state  legislatures  of  the  United  States.  The 
decisions  of  the  American  courts  about  which  complaint  is 
made  are  so  decided,  generally,  either  because  they  are  spe- 
cial laws — that  they  are  "class  legislation" — and,  therefore, 
against  both  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  constitutions,  federal 
and  state,  or  else  because  they  have  infringed  upon  the  per- 
sonal and  individual  rights  of  certain  citizens — and  it  does 
not  matter  whether  these  citizens  are  rich  or  poor,  or  em- 
ployers or  employees. 

Among  Americans  there  is  a  general  acceptance  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  right  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  to  pass  upon  the  validity  of  acts  of  Congress  and  of 
state  laws  in  certain  aspects,  in  cases  brought  before  it,  in 
which  these  laws  are  involved.  The  majority  of  Americans 
evidently  take  it  for  granted  that  this  power  is  specifically 
given  to  the  Supreme  Court  by  the  Constitution  itself.  Not 
so.  The  authority  is  only  an  iulplied  one — and  some  even 
claim  an  usurped  one.  It  seems  to  be  a  natural  corollary 
that  if  there  is  a  written  constitution  prescribing  the  limita- 
tions of  legislative  power,  there  must  be  lodged  somewhere 
an  authority  to  decide  whether,  and  when,  and  where  those 
limitations  have  been  overstepped.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  assumed,  on  its  own  motion,  that  this 
power  \vas  lodged  with  it,  getting  its  authority  by  implica- 
tion. That  assumption  has  been  challenged  in  the  past,  but 
without  avail.  It  is  challenged  now  in  a  formal  way  by  the 
Socialist  Party,  who  in  tlicir  "platform"  of  1908,  upon  which 
Mr.  Debs  ran  for  President,  included  this  in  their  "demands": 

The  abolition  of  the  power  usurped  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  legisla- 
tion enacted  by  Congress.  National  laws  to  be  repealed  or  abro- 
gated only  by  act  of  Congress  or  by.  a  referendum  of  thf  whole 
people. 

The  Supreme   Court  of  the  United   States  has,  within   a 

recent  period,  declared  unconstitutional  the  following  "labor 

laws": 

That  the  Constitution  bie  made  amendable  by  maJorUy  vote. 
The  law  of  the  state  of  New  York   (passed  by  the  state  legls- 
'lature)    limiting  the  hours  of  workmen   in  bake  shops  to   ten   per 
day. 

The  law  prohibiting   "common   carriers"    engaged   in   interstate 


TRADE    UNIONS  95 


commerce  from  discharging  employees  because  of  membership  in 
a  labor  organization,  or  from  discharging  them  for  any  reason. 

The  law  limiting  the  hours  of  telegraphers  and  other  railway 
employees  of  common   carriers  engaged  in   interstate   commerce. 

The  eight-hour  law  so  far  as  it  applies  to  dredge-men  in  Gov- 
ernment  employ. 

Federal  courts,  other  than  the  Supreme  Court,  have  also 
declared  unconstitutional  the  law  passed  by  Congress  pre- 
scribing the  hours  for  telegraphers  and  other  railway  em- 
ployees; and  also  the  Congressional  law  providing  for  the 
liability  of  common  carriers  engaged  in  interstate  commerce 
for  accidents  to  their  employees. 

There  have  been  a  multitude  of  similar  decisions  by  the 
state  courts,  and  as  they  have  not  been  negatived  by  a  higher 
court  or  by  legislation  they  must  be  considered  the  law  of 
the  land: 

Maliciously  inciting  the  employees  of  a  railroad  which  is 
being  operated  by  a  receiver  of  the  court  to  strike,  is  contempt 
of  court,    and  punishable. 

Combinations  of  employees  to  compel  railroads  to  cease  using 
certain  cars  (because  of  a  strike  against  the  owners  or  makers) 
is  a  boycott,   and   is  an  unlawful   combination. 

An  employer  is  under  no  legal  obligation  to  give  a  discharged 
employee   a  statement   of  his   service. 

The  "black-list"  has  been  declared  lawful. 

In  the  noted  case  of  the  Buck  Stove  and  Range  Co.  v.  The 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  the  latter  was  enjoined  from  de- 
claring,   threatening,    or   maintaining   a   boycott. 

Combinations  to  compel  a  manufacturer  whose  goods  are 
sold  in  other  states  to  "unionize"  his  shop  is  in  "restraint  of 
trade,"  within  the  meaning  of  the  Anti-trust  Act,  and  is  there- 
fore illegal. 

Contracts  of  public  bodies  limiting  the  work  to  union  labor 
are  void. 

A  law  prohibiting  an  employer  from  making  a  condition  of 
employment  the  withdrawal  from  a  trade  union  on  the  part  of 
the   employee  is  unconstitutional. 

The  "Unfair"  list,  when  its  object  is  to  induce  a  boycott,  Is 
declared  unlawful. 

A  labor  organization  which  compels  an  employer  to  discharge 
non-union  men  by  threats  to  notify  all  labor  organizations  that 
the  employer  is  a  non-union  one,  is  liable  to  action  for  damages 
by  a  non-union  employee  as  an  aggrieved  party. 

A  demand  by  workmen  for  a  "closed  shop"  Is  contrary  to 
"public  policy." 

A  statute  compelling  corporations  to  assign  reasons  for  dis- 
charging an  employee  is  unconstitutional. 

A  statute  prohibiting  "blacklisting"  by  employers  is  uncon- 
stitutional. 

"Picketing,"  for  the  purpose  of  annoying  non-union  men,  Is 
unlawful. 

There  have  been  a  multitude  of  similar  decisions  by  the 

state  courts.     One  of  the  most  important  of  these  was  by  the 

Supreme   Court   of  the  state  of  Ohio,   declaring  unconstitu- 


96  SELECTED  ARTICLES        • 

tional  a  law  (passed  in  1900)  limiting  to  eight  hours  a  day 
laborers,  workmen,  and  mechanics  engaged  upon  public  work 
or  work  done  for  the  state.  The  Court  held  that  this  law 
"violates  and  abridges  the  right  of  parties  to  contract  as  to 
the  number  of  hours'  labor  that  shall  constitute  a  day's  work, 
and  invades  and  violates  the  right,  both  of  liberty  and  prop- 
erty, in  that  it  denies  to  municipalities  and  to  contractors 
and  sub-contractors  the  right  to  agree  with  their  employees 
upon  the  terms  and  conditions  of  their  contracts." 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  state  of  Massachusetts  has 
given  a  decision  which  may  have  as  far-reaching  a  result  as 
almost  any  that  has  been  rendered  in  regard  to  organized 
labor.  It  is  to  the  effect  that  members  of  a  trade  union 
cannot  be  compelled  to  strike  by  the  organization.  A 
bricklayers'  union  had  ordered  a  strike  to  enforce  a  demand, 
but  some  of  the  members  declined  to  obey  the  order.  There- 
upon the  union  voted  to  fine  the  disobedient  members,  and 
the  latter  appealed  to  the  courts  to  enjoin  the  union  en- 
forcing its  demand.  The  injunction  was  issued,  and  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  state  sustained  the  restraining  order. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  state  of  New  York  has  decid- 
ed that  the  legislature  of  the  state  cannot  prescribe  the 
compensation  which  municipalities  must  pay  their  employees. 

The  Missouri  State  Supreme  Court  has  declared  an  "anti- 
truck"  law  unconstitutional. 

There  has  been  a  recent  Canadian  decision  in  line  with 
several  given  on  this  side  of  the  border.  In  Winnipeg,  Man- 
itoba, the  plumbers'  union  struck,  and  pickets  were  posted 
around  the  workshops.  The  employers  brought  suit,  and 
the  court  not  only  enjoined  the  men  from  picketing,  but 
mulcted  them  in  damages  to  the  extent  of  $25,000  and  de- 
creed that  each  member  of  the  union  could  be  assessed  in- 
dividually and  his  property  attached  to  satisfy  the  judgment. 

It  may  be  stated  as  a  general  proposition  that  the  trend 
of  decisions  of  the  American  courts  is  opposed  to  the  spirit 
and  intent  of  recent  legislation  by  the  British  Parliament  in 
regard  to  compensation  for  injuries,  the  American  authorities 
generally  holding  to  the  old  doctrine  of  "contributory  negli- 
gence" and  the  requirement  of  the  employee  to  safeguard 
his  own  person  from  injuries. 


TRADE    UNIONS  '  97 

Independent.  54:  3038-9.  December  18,  1902. 

Incorporation  of  Trade  Unions. 

Incorporation  of  trade  unions  has  lately  been  the  topic  of 
discussion  in  connection  with  labor  disputes  both  in  this 
country  and  in  Great  Britain.  It  has  been  argued  on  the 
employers'  side  that  it  will  be  impossible  to  enter  into  agree- 
ments with  trade  unions  until  they  become  incorporated 
bodies  fully  responsible  for  any  breach  of  contract  by  its 
member  or  officers;  the  implication  being  that  an  unincor- 
porated labor  union  could  not  be  made  legally  liable  for 
breach  of  contract  or  tort.  This  view  has  been  readily  ac- 
cepted by  the  labor  side,  and  has  been  urged  as  an  argument 
against  incorporation. 

This  sentiment  has  been  strengthened  since  the  decision 
rendered  last  year  by  the  House  of  Lords  in  the  case  of  the 
Taff  Vale  Railway  Company  against  the  Amalgamated  So- 
ciety of  Railway  Servants.  In  that  case  counsel  for  the  labor 
union  argued  that  as  it  was  neither  a  corporation  nor  a 
partnership  it  could  not  be  made  a  party  to  an  action  in 
court;  this  contention  was  overruled  by  the  House  of  Lords. 
The  decision  elicited  a  great  deal  of  adverse  criticism  in 
circles  friendly  to  labor.  A  noted  British  publicist  was  re- 
ported to  have  said  that  the  decision  of  the  House  of  Lords 
would  enable  the  employers  to  break  up  the  trade  unions  by 
obtaining  heavy  judgments  against  them  and  levying  upon 
the  funds  in  their  treasuries. 

In  whatever  direction  one's  sympathies  may  lie,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  decision  of  the  House  of  Lords  is  sound 
law.  The  position  that  a  trade  union  "can  do  no  wrong"  in 
a  legal  sense  is  untenable.  Nor  is  there  in  the  decision  any 
novel  departure  from  accepted  principles.  The  rigid  forms 
of  the  old  English  common  law,  which  required  the  joinder 
of  all  individuals  belonging  to  an  association  as  parties  to  the 
action,  have  long  since  been  relieved  by  the  more  liberal 
practice  of  the  courts  of  equity.  Under  the  rules  of  equity 
pleading,  when  the  question  is  one  of  common  interest  t.o 
many  persons,  or  when  the  parties  are  very  numerous,  and  it 


98  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

is  impracticable  to  bring  them  all  before  the  court,  one  or 
more  of  them  may  sue  or  be  sued  qs  representing  the  in- 
terests of  all.  This  rule  specially  applies  "where  the  parties 
form  a  voluntary  association  for  public  or  private  purposes, 
and  those  who  sue  or  defend  may  be  presumed  to  represent 
the  rights  and  interests  of  the  whole."  (Stor}',  Equity  Plead- 
ing, Sec.  107.) 

The  New  York  Code  of  Procedure  of  1847,  which  simpli- 
lied  procedure  by  effacing  the  distinction  between  actions  at 
law  and  suits  in  equity,  adopted  these  rules  of  pleading  al- 
most verbatim  (Sec.  448  of  the  present  Code  of  Civil  Proce- 
dure). They  were  reproduced  from  the  New  York  Code  in 
the  codes  of  California,  Colorado,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Kentucky, 
Nebraska,  Ohio,  etc.,  and  also  in  the  British  Judicature  Act 
of  1873. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  in  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  in  the 
United  States,  and  in  Code  states  as  well  as  in  those  where 
the  old  practice  still  prevails,  a  suit  can  be  maintained  against 
an  unincorporated  trade  union  for  a  breach  of  contract  or  a 
tort.  In  New  York  the  practice  in  such  cases  has  been  fur- 
ther regulated  by  a  later  amendment,  which  relates  to  ac- 
tions by  or  against  "unincorporated  associations  consisting 
of  more  than  seven  members."  An  action  in  such  a  case 
must  be  brought  against  its  president  or  treasurer,  and  the 
judgment  binds  the  property  of  the  association.  Under  these 
provisions  actions  have  been  maintained  in  New  York  courts 
by  and  against  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  many  other  unin- 
corporated labor  organizations. 

A  trade  union  can,  therefore,  gain  no  immunity  from 
judgments  for  breach  of  contract  or  tort  by  a  mere  failure 
to  incorporate.  The  real  issue  in  all  recent  injunction  cases 
is  the  right  of  labor  unions  to  resort  to  such  methods  as 
picketing,  boycotting,  etc.,  which  are  usually  enjoined  by 
the  courts.  In  the  Taff  Vale  case  the  court  below  granted 
an  injunction  restraining  the  union  from  picketing.  Counsel 
for  the  union  attempted  to  defeat  the  injunction  by  raising 
the  technical  question  of  the  status  of  a  trade  union  in  court 
^nd  was   sustained  by  the  Court  of  Appeal.     This  was   the 


TRADE  UNIONS  99 

only  question  before  the  House  of  Lords,  the  vital  issue 
thus  being  obscured  by  a  technicality.  Council  may  be  ex- 
cused for  attempting  to  win  their  clients'  case  upon  a 
technicality,  but  great  social  problems  cannot  be  solved  by 
clever  technical  points. 

There  are,  however,  more  valid  objections  to  incorpora- 
tion of  trade  unions  under  the  present  state  of  corporation 
law.  The  object  of  a  trade  union  is  to  represent  its  members 
in  the  collective  bargaining  for  terms  of  employment.  Now, 
an  agreement  made  by  an  unincorporated  trade  union  for 
the  benefit  of  its  members  is  easily  enforcible,  inasmuch  as 
their  rights  under  such  an  agreement  "are  not  materially 
different  from  those  of  partners"  (McMahon  vs.  Rauhr,  47 
N.  Y.,  67).  The  union  would  be  entitled  to  bring  suit  against 
an  employer  for  a  breach  of  the  labor  agreement  resulting 
in  a  loss  to  its  members.  The  moment,  however,  the  union 
incorporates,  the  law  regards  it,  like  any  other  corporation, 
as  a  body  separate  and  distinct  from  its  members.  An  un- 
authorized reduction  of  the  scale  of  wages  is  an  injury  to 
the  individual  members  of  the  union,  but  the  union,  as  a 
corporate  body,  has  sustained  no  pecuniary  loss  thereby,  and 
can  therefore  claim  no  damages  for  the  breach  of  the  con- 
tract of  employment.  We  are  thus  brought  face  to  face  with 
a  legal  paradox — viz.,  that  a  thousand  workmen  may  com- 
bine into  an  association  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  con- 
tract with  an  employer  and  that  contract  will  be  enforced  by 
the  court,  but  should  the  same  association  incorporate  under 
the  law  it  forfeits  its  remedies  against  the  employer  for 
breach  of  contract.  This  clearly  shows  that  the  present  cor- 
poration law,  which  is  adapted  to  the  needs  of  business  cor- 
poration is  unsuited  to  the  requirements  of  a  trade  union. 

There  can  be  no  objection  in  principle  to  the  incorporation 
of  trade  unions,  but  in  order  to  make  it  practically  feasible 
an  adequate  law  must  be  framed  which  will  assure  to  the  in- 
corporated trade  unions  the  same  legal  remedies  against  an 
employer  for  breach  of  contract  as  the  employer  now  pos- 
sesses against  a  trade  union. 


;  .ATo . 

i  ^aN  JOS&k)  -     OALIFOR^y:LECTED  articles 

Independent.  66:  11-3.  January  7,  1909. 

What   Organized   Labor   Ought  to   Have:   A   Reply   to   Mr. 
Gompers.     Everett  P.  Wheeler. 

Henry  George  said  that  labor  asked  for  justice.  This  it 
certainly  should  have — absolutely  impartial  justice.  But  it 
ought  not  to  have  special  privileges.  This,  it  seems  to  me, 
is  what  Mr.  Gompers  asks. 

His  fundamental  mistake  is  in  his  claim  that  there  can 
be  no  property  in  anything  intangible,  and  that  labor  is  in- 
tangible. A  right  of  property  in  the  labor  of  another  man, 
he  says,  means  slavery.  He  declares  that  it  is  an  inalienable 
right  of  freemen  "to  work  for  whom  you  please,  to  stop 
work  when  you  please,  for  any  reason  you  please,  or  for  no 
reason." 

This  definition  of  slavery  is  erroneous.  Slavery  means 
the  subjection  of  one  person  who  is  of  full  age,  and  possest 
of  his  faculties,  against  his  consent,  to  the  control  of  another. 
But  if  the  consent  be  given,  there  is  no  slavery.  If  a  Circas- 
sian sells  his  daughter  to  a  Turk,  against  her  will,  she  be- 
comes the  slave  of  the  Turk.  But  if  she  voluntarily  marries 
him,  she  becomes  his  wife.  As  a  wife  she  owes  many  duties 
to  her  husband.  To  the  performance  of  these  she  voluntarily 
bound  herself  when  she  became  his  wife.  This  is  not  slavery. 
So  with  a  man's  labor.  It  is  his  property,  and  a  sacred  and 
indispensable  property.  He  is  free  to  sell  it  or  to  refuse  to 
sel).  But  once  he  contracts  to  give  his  labor,  the  person  with 
whom  the  contract  is  made  has  property  in  its  performance. 

If  a  manager  contract  with  a  singer  to  sing  in  opera,  the 
tenor  must  keep  his  contract  or  respond  in  damages.  The 
contract  for  his  service  is  just  as  much  property  as  the  lease 
of  the  opera  house. 

When  a  trades  union  or  a  single  workman  agrees  with  a 
corporation  or  an  individual  for  the  doing  of  work,  the  right 
to  have  that  contract  performed  is  property.  Well  does  Mr. 
Gompers  say:  "The  trade  agreement  between  the  union  and 
its  employers  we  believe  to  be  the  keystone  of  peace  in  the 
industrial  world  today." 

When  that  trade  agreement  is  made,  each  party  has  a 


TRADE  UNIONS  loi 

vested  right  to  its  performance  by  the  other,  and  that  right 
is  property. 

Therefore,  the  Canadian  Arbitration  Statute  and  the 
American  Railroad  Act  are  right.  The  American  act  is  en- 
titled "An  act  concerning  carriers  engaged  in  interstate  com- 
merce and  their  employees."  It  was  approved  June  ist,  1898. 
It  provides  that  "whenever  a  controversy  concerning  wages, 
hours  of  labor  or  conditions  of  employment  shall  arise  be- 
tween a  carrier  subject  to  the  act  and  the  employees  of  such 
<:arrier,  seriously  interrupting  or  threatening  to  interrupt  the 
business  of  the  carrier,"  either  party  may  demand  an  arbi- 
tration. Pending  the  arbitration  the  status  existing  imme- 
diately prior  to  the  dispute  must  not  be  changed;  provided 
that  no  employee  shall  be  compelled  to  render  personal 
service  without  his  consent.  Employees  dissatisfied  with  the 
award  are  forbidden  to  quit  the  employer's  service  before 
three  months  after  the  award,  without  giving  thirty  days' 
notice.  In  like  manner  a  dissatisfied  employer  cannot  dis- 
charge employees  on  account  of  dissatisfaction  with  the 
award  without  giving  thirty  days'  notice. 

This  act  was  successfully  invoked  in  March,  1907,  to  pre- 
vent a  great  railway  strike  west  of  Chicago. 

Both  the  American  and  Canadian  acts  provide  a  definite 
method  of  enforcing  some  of  these  trade  agreements.  They 
recognize  the  great  injury  to  thousands  of  innocent  people 
that  may  be  caused  by  a  sudden  strike  or  a  sudden  lockout 
in  the  management  of  a  public  service  corporation.  (The 
American  act  is  limited  to  railroads.)  And  they  forbid  a 
strike  or  lockout,  in  the  case  of  disagreement  between  em- 
ployer and  employed,  until  there  has  been  an  arbitration. 
This  is  a  great  step  in  advance.  Civilization  means  the  en- 
forcement of  contracts  by  lawful  means.  To  compel  another, 
by  individual  warfare,  either  to  make  or  to  keep  a  contract, 
is  barbarism. 

In  the  long  run,  the  sacredness  of  contracts  means  more 
to  the  labor  union  than  to  the  employer.  What  the  honest 
workman  wants  is  steady  work  on  terms  to  which  he  has 
freely  agreed,  and  the  performance  of  which  he  can  enforce. 

The  justice  of  Mr.  Gompers's  criticisms  on  the  Sherman 
Act  must  be  admitted.     That  law  was  tost  into  the  statute 


102  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

book  by  that  hysterical  wave  of  prohibition  that  has  been 
sweeping  over  this  country.  An  evil  is  seen.  The  hasty 
impulse  of  the  sincere  fool,  and  the  ready  compliance  of  the 
shortsighted  knave,  is  to  put  a  prohibitory  law  on  the  statute 
book.  The  first  satisfies  his  morbid  conscience.  The  second 
curries  favor  with  the  noisy  constituent,  and  thinks  the  law 
will  never  be  enforced. 

By  all  means  amend  the  Sherman  Act.  Repeal  the  prohi- 
bition against  combinations,  whether  of  labor  or  capital. 
Instead  thereof,  regulate  both.  Provide  an  effective  remedy 
by  which  the  illegal  acts  of  either  can  be  readily  restrained. 

It  will  be  asked:  "What  would  you  designate  as  illegal 
acts?"  I  answer:  Interference  with  the  property  rights  of 
others,  whether  employer  or  employed.  The  blacklist  ought 
to  be  illegal.  The  workman  has  a  right  to  contract  for  his 
labor.  The  employer  ought  not  to  interfere  with  this  right. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  one  workman  has  contracted  to  labor 
for  an  employer,  another  ought  not  to  entice  him  to  break 
that  contract.  Each  party  to  the  contract  has  a  property 
right  to  its  performance  by  the  other. 

Mr.  Gompers  says  to  us:  "Labor's  weapons  are  in  no 
sense  weapons  of  aggression;  they  are  nothing  more  than 
purely  passive  resistance." 

If  this  were  true,  there  would  be  no  just  cause  for  com- 
plaint. But  is  it  true?  In  the  Danbury  hat  case,  a  manufac- 
turer in  Danbury  was  peaceably  making  hats.  He  had  in  his 
employ  men  who  had  freely  contracted  to  work  for  him  in 
that  business.  Was  it  no  aggression  to  boycott  his  customers 
and  prevent  him  from  making  sales,  and  his  workmen  from 
working  to  make  hats?  Is  the  law  so  blind  that  it  can  only 
see  direct  acts  of  violent  aggression?  Is  it  murder  to  stab 
a  man  to  the  heart,  and  not  murder  to  kill  him  by  poison 
sent  thru  the  mails?  Mr.  Gompers  can  never  convince  the 
American  people  that  there  is  any  difference  in  guilt  be- 
tween the  two  or  that  there  should  be  any  difference  in  the 
legal  remedy. 

He  argues  that  the  criminal  law  affords  sufficient  protec- 
tion. Unfortunately,  it  does  not.  The  criminal  law  of  Amer- 
ica was  not  devised  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  the  guilty. 
It  expressly   declares  that  it  is  better  that  ten  guilty  men 


TRADE  UNIONS  103 

escape  than  that  one  innocent  man  be  punished.  And  if  it 
were  otherwise,  criminal  law  is  a  poor  protection  for  civil 
rights.     Leave  that  to  the  civil  courts. 

Now,  it  may  be  that  in  some  cases  injunctions  have  been 
improvidently  granted.  Judges  are  not  infallible.  But  the 
means  of  redress  are  available.  Who  can  name  a  labor  suit 
where  an  improvident  injunction  has  been  in  the  end  sus- 
tained? On  the  other  hand,  the  injunction  was  of  invalu- 
able service  to  the  public  in  the  Chicage  railroad  strike  and 
in  the  San  Francisco  'longshoremen  strike.  The  brutal  vio- 
lence of  the  strikers  was  the  reverse  of  "passive  resistance." 
If  continued,  it  would  have  caused  a  complete  cessation  of 
commerce.  "Commerce,"  as  the  Flemish  burghers  said  to 
Charles  the  Bold  four  hundred  years  ago,  "commerce  is  ir- 
reconcilable with  war." 

Again,  Mr.  Gompers  declares:  "No  man  has  a  property 
right  to  the  custom  of  any  other  man  in  business."  This  is 
his  second  fundamental  mistake.  The  good-will  of  a  business 
is  a  property  right,  and  often  very  valuable.  It  is  constantly 
bought  and  sold.  The  good-will  of  a  business  is  the  interest 
of  the  owner  in  the  custom  of  that  business. 

Let  me  illustrate  by  a  case  in  my  own  experience.  Over 
thirty  years  ago  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Telegraph  Company 
was  competing  with  the  Western  Union.  The  latter  had 
then  the  monopoly  of  the  cable  lines  to  Europe.  It  refused 
to  transmit  over  these  cable  lines  messages  forwarded  by 
its  competitor.  I  obtained  an  injunction  restraining  it  from 
refusing.  Under  this  order  cable  messages  were  transmitted 
until  the  merger  of  the  two  companies.  This  injunction  was 
vital  to  the  existence  of  the  competing  company,  for  its  cus- 
tomers, as  a  rule,  would  not  deal  with  it  unless  they  could 
have  cable  as  well  as  land  messages  forwarded. 

There  the  court  recognized  property  in  the  custom  which 
the  telegraph  company  had  obtained.  And  it  recognized 
property  in  the  contract  of  the  operators  to  transmit  mes- 
sages.    It  protected  the  one  and  enforced  the  other. 

Mr.  Gompers  is  right  in  saying  the  labor  union  "sells  the 
power  to  labor."  In  making  this  sale  it  should  obey  the  laws 
of  trade.  These  are  to  make  a  good  article  and  sell  at  a 
fair  price.     Let  organized  labor  strive  for  both  ends,  and  it 


I04  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

will  have  the  support  of  all  good  men.  But,  he  adds,  the 
labor  union  is  not  a  trust  because  it  "deals,  not  with  material 
things,  but  with  the  labor  of  its  members;  it  aims,  not  to 
confine  its  benefits  to  a  few,  but  to  bestow  them  on  every 
member  of  the  trade." 

There  again  is  the  fundamental  mistake  that  a  combina- 
tion is  not  a  trust  because  it  deals  only  with  immaterial 
things.  They  are  just  as  much  the  subject  of  property  as  ma- 
terial things.  Light  and  air  are  just  as  necessary  as  bread 
and  water.  The  elevated  railroads  have  in  many  instances 
paid  as  much  as  a  million  dollars  per  mile  for  interfering 
with  the  light  and  air  of  the  abutting  owners.  When  you 
buy  a  corner  house  you  pay  more  than  for  a  house  on  an 
inside  lot,  because  you  get  more  light  and  air.  Whether, 
therefore,  a  combination  deals  in  labor  or  in  sugar,  it  is 
equally  a  trust,  and  ought  not  to  be  prohibited,  but  be  al- 
lowed perfect  freedom  as  long  as  it  does  not  interfere  with 
the  rights  of  others,  but  no  longer. 

And  when  we  are  told  that  the  labor  union  limits  its  aim 
to  "every  member  of  the  trade,"  we,  who  are  not  members, 
feel  that  the  aim  is  narrow  and  shortsighted.  The  real  good 
of  the  members  of  the  trade  is  bound  up  with  that  of  those 
who  are  not  members.  If  a  union  man  does  a  good  job, 
the  customer  is  benefited.  If  he  scamps  his  work,  the  cus- 
tomer suffers.  When  many  customers  suffer,  their  ability 
and  their  disposition  to  pay  good  wages  are  both  diminished. 
"When  one  member  suffers,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it.'' 

One  other  flaw  in  Mr,  Gompers's  argument  requires  con- 
sideration. He  maintains  that  an  act  lawful  in  the  individual 
ought  not  be  unlawful  to  a  combination.  Let  us  see.  If 
one  man  enters  my  house  and  behaves  decently  he  is  wel- 
come. But  if  a  thousand  men  come  at  once  and  fill  it,  they 
violate  my  right  to  use  my  own  home.  If  the  grocer  nearest 
me  dislikes  me  and  refuses  to  sell  me  food,  I  can  buy  else- 
where. But  if  all  the  provision  dealers  in  town  combine  to 
refuse  to  sell  me  food,  they  starve  me  to  death.  That  is 
murder  just  as  much  as  if  they  killed  me  with  a  pistol. 

"You  take  my  life  when  you  do  take  the  means  by  which 
I  live." 

The  test  of  the  lawfulness  of  a  combination  should  be  the 


TRADE  UNIONS  105 

lawfulness  of  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  formed.  A  com- 
bination to  economize  the  cost  of  production  and  thereby  give 
the  buyer  a  better  article  at  a  cheaper  rate  should  always  be 
lawful.  A  combination  to  destroy  a  man's  business  is  the 
"ferocious  competition"  of  which  Mr.  Justice  Holmes  speaks, 
and  should  always  be  unlawful.  On  these  lines,  let  the  Sher- 
man Act  be  amended. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  Gompers  declares:  "The  workingmen 
constitute  the  great  majority  of  people  in  the  world;  finally, 
they  will  take  over  the  power  of  government."  Yes,  the 
workingmen.  But  who  are  the  workingmen?  Farmers  and 
farm  laborers  are  workingmen.  Those  engaged  in  personal 
service  are  workingmen.  Ministers,  lawyers,  doctors,  engi- 
neers, teachers  are  all  workingmen,  and  generally  work  more 
than  eight  hours  a  day.  "Organized  labor"  does  not  include 
more  than  one-tenth  of  the  population  of  America.  Trades 
unions  have  been  in  many  instances  of  great  service  to  their 
members,  and  to  the  public.  As  long  as  they  ask  for  justice, 
and  limit  their  endeavors  to  that,  they  will  have  public  sup- 
port. But  when  they  seek  to  gain  their  ends  by  violence, 
direct  or  indirect,  the  pistol,  the  club,  or  the  boycott,  they 
will  be  defeated.  This  is  a  free  country,  and  the  man  who 
does  not  belong  to  a  labor  union  has  just  as  indefeasible  a 
right  to  sell  his  labor  as  if  he  were  a  member.  This  right 
the  laws  of  a  free  country  will  always  protect. 


AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 

Peters,  J.  P.  Labor  and  Capital,  pp.  55-61. 
Benefits  of  Labor  Unions.     James  Bronson  Reynolds. 

Benefits  to  employed. — I  would  specify  three  classes  of 
benefits  which  unions  give  to  their  members.  The  first  is 
the  immediate,  material  benefit  for  which  the  union  is  organ- 
ized, namely,  a  fair  working  day  and  as  high  wages  as  pos- 
sible. If  you  find  a  trade  with  short  hours  and  good  wages 
you  may  be  sure  that  it  is  one  whose  workers  have  been  or- 
ganized into  a  union.  If  the  hours  are  long  and  the  wages 
small  you  may  safely  infer  that  the  trade  is  either  unorgan- 
ized or  weakly  organized.  The  only  exceptions  are  a  few 
highly  skilled  trades  where  organization  may  not  be  neces- 
sary to  secure  a  monopoly  of  labor. 

Those  who  call  themselves  advocates  of  non-union  labor 
should  remember  that  the  union  secures  the  hours  of  labor 
and  the  standard  of  wages  by  which  the  non-union  man  is 
benefitted  equally  with  the  union  man.  I  know  no  means  by 
which  reasonable  hours  and  a  fair  rate  of  wages  can  be  se- 
cured and  maintained  in  a  trade  except  by  organization,  and 
I  regard  the  realization  of  the  value  of  organization  in  any 
trade  as  a  fair  test  of  the  intelligence  of  the  men  engaged  in 
it.  If  unions  are  sometimes  narrow  or  arbitrary  the  remedy 
is  not  the  abolishment  of  the  union,  any  more  than  anarchy 
is  the  remedy  for  bad  government.  The  remedy  for  bad 
government  is  good  government,  and  the  remedy  for  bad 
unions  is  good  unions.  In  any  case  organization  is  the  road 
to  progress  and  improvement  for  the  wage-earner. 

Further  material  benefits  from  trade  unions  are  found  in 
the  efforts  of  unions  to  secure  the  safety  of  their  members  in 
the  use  of  dangerous  machinery,  in  the  maintenance  of  good 
sanitary  conditions  under  which  the  work  shall  be  performed, 
in  the  granting  of  out-of-work,  sickness,  and  death  benefits. 


io8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

A  labor  union  is  also  an  employment  bureau,  and  its  officers 
spend  no  little  part  of  their  time  in  securing  work  for  mem- 
bers out  of  work. 

The  second  benefit  of  a  trade-union  to  its  members  is 
that  the  union  seeks  to  maintain  permanent  employment.  A 
well-organized  union  is  always  opposed  to  strikes  except  as 
a  last  resort.  The  strength  of  a  union  can  be  judged  by  the 
frequency  of  strikes  in  the  trade.  Labor  leaders,  as  a  class, 
are  opposed  to  strikes  and  prevent  many  labor  difficulties 
of  which  employers  are  not  aware  and  for  which  the  leaders 
receive  no  credit.  This  statement  may  be  a  surprise  to  some 
and  may  be  denied  by  the  enemies  of  trade-unions,  but  it  is 
never-the-less  true.  As  union  officers  are  not  connected  with 
the  shop  in  which  difficulties  arise,  they  are  usually  free  from 
its  prejudices  and  its  irritations.  There  have  been  many 
instances  where  they  have  kept  men  at  work,  where  "hot- 
heads" would  have  caused  a  strike  and  would  have  involved 
their  members  in  loss.  Employers  who  indignantly  resent 
what  they  call  the  intrusion  of  outsiders  in  the  management 
of  their  own  affairs  would  do  well  to  consider  this  statement. 
This  service  of  labor  leaders  is  neither  known  nor  appreciat- 
ed as  it  deserves  to  be.  The  unreasonable  demands  and 
overbearing  manners  of  a  few  are  taken  as  characteristic  of 
the  class. 

The  third  benefit  of  a  trade-union  to  its  members  is  the 
moral  benefit.  Unions  in  the  technical  trades  demand  tests 
of  efficiency  from  their  members.  Some  also  demand  the 
maintenance  of  a  certain  standard  of  technical  efficiency,  and 
many  scrutinize  moral  character.  The  officers  of  a  union 
who  find  a  member  repeatedly  out  of  work  and  constantly 
coming  to  them  for  another  job  are  sure  to  advise  him  to  do 
better  work  and  warn  him  against  the  results  of  dissipation. 
Hence,  unionism,  though  not  encouraging  competition  be- 
tween members,  does  encourage  good  character  and  good 
work. 

Benefits  to  employers. — The  benefits  of  a  trade-union  to 
employers  have  been  r,ecognized  by  a  few,  grudgingly  ad- 
mitted by  some,  and  doubted  by  many.  But  I  am  convinced 
that  it  is  as  certainly  to  the  advantage  of  an  employer  to 
deal  with  a  union,  rather  than  with  unorganized  bodies  of 


TRADE  UNIONS  109 

working  men,  as  it  is  to  the  advantage  of  the  men  to  belong 
to  union.  The  first  benefit  to  the  employer  who  wishes  to 
learn  the  real  cause  of  his  diflficulties  with  his  men  is  that 
he  can  deal  through  the  union  with  their  own  chosen  repre- 
sentatives, who,  as  a  rule,  are  best  qualified  to  speak  in  their 
behalf.  Not  being  dependent  upon  the  employer  the  leaders 
are  able  to  speak  frankly  and  freely,  and  the  root  of  the  dif- 
ficulty can  be  reached  more  quickly  through  them  than 
through  the  workers  who  constantly  fear  that  their  com- 
plaints may  cause  the  loss  of  their  jobs.  Second,  employers 
often  indignantly  declare  that  they  are  willing  to  meet  their 
own  men,  but  do  not  admit  the  right  of  outsiders  to  "inter- 
fere" in  their  business.  Without  discussing  the  economic 
questions  involved  in  that  proposition,  but  considering  the 
case  merely  from  the  employer's  point  of  view,  I  believe  the 
prejudice  is  short  sighted.  The  employer  needs  to  learn  the 
real  cause  of  the  difficulty  in  his  shop  from  those  best  able  to 
express  it  and  who  will  be  free  from  personal  prejudice  and 
local  bias.  The  labor  leader  knows  how  to  handle  his  own 
men,  is  not  deceived  by  their  attempt  to  give  an  incorrect 
statement  of  the  case,  quickly  sifts  the  evidence,  and,  be- 
cause of  his  experience,  is  an  expert  representative  of  the 
laborer's  point  of  view.  If  the  employer  is  willing  to  meet 
his  men  fairly,  he  cannot  find  anyone  so  well  qualified  to  help 
him  settle  the  difficulty  justly  to  both  sides  as  the  accredited 
leader  of  an  organization.  Third,  the  employer  is  immensely 
benefitted  by  the  conservatism  of  the  experienced  labor 
leader.  Unorganized  bodies  of  men  are  much  more  likely  to 
strike  hastily  than  if  directed  by  experienced  leaders.  Of 
course  there  are  leaders  who  involve  their  unions  in  unneces- 
sary strikes,  make  negotiation  with  employers  difficult,  exer- 
cise a  bad  influence  over  the  men,  and  are  generally  un- 
worthy of  respect  or  confidence.  But  the  true  character  of 
such  men  is  sure  in  time  to  be  discovered.  A  union  will 
not  keep  a  leader  who  does  not  "hit  it  off"  with  the  em- 
ployers. My  opinion  is  that  while  some  unworthy  and  dis- 
honest leaders  are  unwisely  trusted  by  their  organizations. 
in  the  majority  of  cases  it  would  be  better  for  the  men  if 
they  more  thoroughly  trusted  their  own  chosen  leaders.  Dis- 
trust of  their  leaders  is  the  greatest  weakness  of  labor  un- 


no  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ions.  While  a  few  socalled  "walking  delegates"  may  be  un- 
trustworthy the  majority  of  them  are  reliable  and  hardwork- 
ing, having  less  leisure  than  the  men  whom  they  represent. 
The  labor  leader  who  works  sixteen  hours  a  day  to  secure 
an  eight-hour  day  for  his  men  is  not  consistent  with  his 
principles  but  he  is  entitled  to  the  respect  of  his  organiza- 
tion. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  27:  521-30.  May,  1906. 

The  Services  of  Labor  Unions  in  the  Settlement  of  Industrial 
Disputes.     William  B.  Prescott. 

While  not  shirking  any  responsibility  for  their  mistakes, 
trade  unionists  deny  that  their  system  is  especially  provoca- 
tive of  industrial  strife.  That  is  due  to  the  inherent  desire 
in  man  to  insist  upon  his  rights  and  to  improve  his  social 
condition.  The  union  arose  when  production  passed  into 
the  factory  stage  and  the  employer  knew  not  his  employees 
except  as  he  heard  of  them  through  his  heads  of  depart- 
ments bent  on  "making  good."  To  the  employer  they  were 
an  impersonal  mob  who  collectively  got  results.  The  fore- 
man or  superintendent  who  did  know  those  under  him  re- 
gretted that  in  fact,  for  his  chief  business  was  to  get  the 
greatest  result  for  the  least  money,  and  in  doing  so  it  be- 
came his  duty  to  squeeze  his  friends.  In  this  way  injustices 
became  rife  that  would  not  be  thought  of  under  the  "small 
shop"  system  with  its  village-like  environment.  If  men  pro- 
tested to  the  superintendent  they  were  told  the  management 
was  responsible,  and  the  management  in  turn  said  it  couldn't 
interfere  with  the  superintendent.  But  both  told  the  work- 
ers if  they  didn't  like  it  they  could  go — the  world  was  wide. 
But  apart  from  juggling  evasiveness  of  this  character,  if  an 
employer  were  ever  so  willing  to  do  the  square  thing,  it* 
would  be  impossible  for  him  to  meet  the  wishes  of  individ- 
ual employees.  The  first  step  to  remedy  wrongs  would  be 
for  the  workers  to  counsel  together  and  formulate  their  de- 
mands or  desires.  Here  we  find  that  a  sort  of  organization 
is  necessary  if  men  are  not  to  submit  to  industrial  despotism, 
and  in  the  workaday  world  there  are  no  benevolent  despo- 
tisms. If  an  industry  be  in  the  competitive  stage,  the  race  fot 
business  prevents  that  to  any  great  extent;  and  if  competi- 


TRADE  UNIONS  in 

tion  be  held  in  check  the  necessity  for  providing  dividends 
on  inflated  stock  is  a  barrier.  The  great  central  figure  in  a 
workingman's  life  is  the  wages  he  is  to  receive.  That  is  not 
only  vital  with  him,  but  vital  with  those  dependent  on  him. 
If  wages  are  low  it  means  not  only  a  lessening  of  creature 
comforts  for  himself,  but  a  narrower,  poorer  outlook  for  his 
children. 

The  cardinal  tenet  of  unionism  is  that  the  worker  shall 
have  an  effective  voice  in  determining  the  conditions  under 
which  the  worker  shall  sell  his  labor.  This  right  has  been 
and  is  usually  resisted  by  employers.  They  see  in  it  an 
attack  upon  their  profits,  and  they  know  that,  once  they  admit 
the  principle  involved,  what  had  been  the  line  of  least  resist- 
ance when  they  desired  to  economize  assumes  something 
like  the  proportions  of  a  stone  wall.  So  there  were  and  are 
strikes  and  lockouts  to  enforce  or  resist  this  so-called  prin- 
ciple. At  that  point  of  developinent  in  any  trade  we  find 
unions  adopting  scales  after  sunset  and  enforcing  them  the 
following  morning.  Employers  may  succumb  to  such  tac- 
tics, but  when  opportunity  offers  the  inevitable  reprisal  oc- 
curs. This  sort  of  guerrilla  warfare  goes  on  until  the  union 
is  destroyed  or  the  employers  awake  to  the  fact  that  whether 
they  recognize  the  organization  or  not,  it  determines  the 
wages  paid.  These  wasteful  strikes  or  lockouts  are  usually 
followed  by  a  conference  of  some  sort,  many  of  which  have 
seen  the  acceptance  of  the  proposition  which  put  an  end  to 
the  wars.  Having  obtained  recognition  of  this  principle  by 
force  of  hard  knocks,  taken  and  given,  the  union  purpose 
and  method  begin  to  unfold.  Confident  of  their  ability  to 
compel  the  respect  of  employers,  the  unionists  promulgate  a 
scale  of  wages,  of  which  they  notify  the  employers  interested 
and  invite  them  to  confer  on  any  disputed  points.  Often- 
times the  unions  have  found  their  employers  slow  to  act  and 
are  compelled  to  call  meetings  of  the  latter  in  order  that 
negotiations  may  be  conducted  in  a  business-like  manner. 

The  representatives  of  both  factions  are  thus  brought  face 
to  face,  and  there  is  a  free  and  frank  discussion  of  views,  it 
is  no  uncommon  thing  to  see  employers  voting  with  em- 
ployees and  vice  versa.  Convinced  of  the  sincerity  of  the 
conferees,  there  is  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  all  to  consider 
questions  on  their  merit,  rather  than  from  the  viewpoint  of 


112  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  special  interests  represented  by  each.  By  this  means 
common  sense  and  reason  supplant  misunderstanding  and 
its  consequent  rancor  and  bitterness.  If  such  a  conference 
eventuates  in  an  amicable  settlement  of  differences,  it  is  a 
short  and  easy  step  to  establish  a  board  of  say,  two  from 
each  element,  to  which  must  be  referred  all  disputes  as  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  agreement,  with  power  to  appoint 
an  arbitrator  in  case  the  conferees  are  unable  to  agree. 

From  this  naturally  follows  a  conference  committee  with 
similar  powers  as  to  appointing  an  umpire  to  decide  upon 
new  scales.  When  this  stage  is  reached  and  the  representa- 
tives are  honest  in  their  professed  desire  to  preserve  the 
peace  there  is  little  danger  of  wasteful  war.  With  a  confer- 
ence committee"  established  there  is  an  agency  existing  whose 
duty  it  is  to  minimize  the  differences  between  the  contending 
factions.  Without  it,  on  the  eve  of  any  change  the  influence 
of  each  organization  seems  to  be  devoted  to  the  senseless, 
almost  criminal,  work  of  widening  the  breach.  This  is  done 
for  the  purpose  of  instilling  confidence  and  backbone  into 
their  respective  memberships.  This  of  itself  is  wasted  en- 
ergy, for  no  one  ever  met  an  employee  who  was  in  favor  of 
long  hours  and  low  wages  or  an  employer  who  wasn't  look- 
ing for  the  easiest  way  to  affluence  or  a  competency,  which- 
ever his  goal  might  happen  to  be. 

Wherever  tried  this  system  has  been  beneficent  to  all.  It 
gives  stability  to  emploj'ment  on  the  one  hand  and  steadiness 
to  the  labor  market  on  the  other.  To  the  public  it  is  also  a 
guarantee  against  unsettled  conditions.  Economically  speak- 
ing, what  more  can  be  asked?  It  is  urged  against  it  by  some 
that  such  agreements  usually  provide  .for  the  surrender  of 
individuality  by  reference  of  disputed  points  to  an  arbitrator. 
This  is  far-fetched,  whether  it  emanates  from  a  worker  or  an 
employer.  The  former  renounces  some  of  his  personal  rights 
when  he  joins  a  union,  and  the  latter  does  also  when  he  joins 
any  of  the  numerous  companies  open  to  him,  or  promises 
to  pay  what  his  competitors  concede.  In  certain  circum- 
stances the  law  compels  us  all  to  submit  to  an  arbitrator 
when  a  neighbor  transfers  a  dispute  into  a  civil  court  where 
a  judge  is  the  umpire.     This  cry  of  individual  liberty  is  car- 


TRADE  UNIONS  113 

ried  to  absurd  lengths,  for  in  our  complex  state  of  society  we 
are  all  dependent. 

I  recall  that  when  typesetting  machines  were  in  their  in- 
fantile days  it  became  necessary  for  the  board  to  render  a 
decision.  Owing  largely  to  the  fact  that  none  knew  much 
about  the  character  and  productivity  of  Mr.  Mergenthaler's 
revolutionary  innovation  there  was  no  agreement.  An  arbi- 
trator was  unanimously  chosen,  who  rendered  a  decision. 
Its  character  and  effect  are  no  importance  now  and  here. 
As  time  rolled  round  and  more  light  was  obtained  on  the 
matter  and  the  making  of  a  machine  scale  became  a  neces- 
sity, the  board  decided  the  subject  too  important  to  be  de- 
termined by  an  outsider,  and  forthwith  drafted  a  scale  that 
in  its  essential  features  has  held  since  that  time. 

The  decision  of  an  arbitrator  often  leaves  bitterness  in  its 
train,  but  not  so  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  a  joint 
board.  And  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  document  is 
the  joint  product  of  the  two  parties  in  interest — it  is  the 
conclusion  of  the  minds  presumably  best  fitted  to  determine 
such  problems.  If  either  party  has  made  a  mistake  in  the 
selection  of  representatives  it  will  regard  it  philosophically — 
it  at  least  has  no  "kick  coming,"  to  drop  into  the  vernacular. 
But  those  acquainted  with  the  system  know  that  the  element 
of  justice  underlying  it  is  what  commends  it  to  the  workers. 
The  right  of  the  seller  to  have  an  effective  voice  in  establish- 
ing the  price  of  his  product  is  recognized,  as  is  not  possible 
under  any  other  known  system.  And  behind  the  labor  move- 
ment in  all  its  manifestations  is  the  all-consuming  desire  for 
justice — rather  than  for  power.  This  element  also  commends 
the  system  to  fair-minded  employers. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  public,  the  trade  agreement  is 
a  happy  solution  of  the  strike  and  lockout  difficulty.  And  if 
the  great  industries  are  not  conducted  along  such  lines,  I 
venture  that  the  State  will  find  some  substitute.  Great 
strikes  in  Australasia  begot  the  compulsory  arbitration  laws 
of  that  progressive  corner  of  the  world.  And  here  and  there 
in  this  country  State  boards  of  mediation  and  arbitration  are 
carrying  on  flirtations  with  the  same  remedy. 

This  public  desires  justice,  too,  and  it  doesn't  want  its 
comfort  disturbed.     If  a  strike  or  lockout  causes  a  dearth  of 


114  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

coal  at  a  reasonable  price  or  common  carriers  do  not  proper- 
ly perform  their  functions,  the  public  will  find  a  way  to  ter- 
minate strikes.  And  this  public,  with  its  good  heart  and 
strong  sense  of  justice,  will  not  order  a  wholesale  massacre 
of  strikers  or  their  incarceration.  It  will  empower  some  au- 
thorit}'  to  hear  the  evidence  and  determine  the  rights  in  the 
controversy  so  that  justice  may  prevail  and  the  public  wants 
be  supplied.  These  law-made  arbitrators — new  kinds  of 
courts  to  settle  new-born  controversies — may  even  be  elected 
for  short  terms  by  the  people.  Legal  objections  to  such  a 
tribunal  may  be  piled  up  mountain  high,  be  very  logical  and 
very  forbidding,  but  my  limited  reading  of  the  history  of  this 
country  has  taught  me  that  whatever  the  people  really  de- 
sired they  secured — even  to  the  establishment  of  a  prohibitive 
tariflF  under  the  guise  of  raising  revenue  from  imports,  or  the 
abolition  of  chattel  slavery.  And  the  new  order  has  always 
made  good. 

But  I  hear  our  friends  say  that  maj'  be  all  very  well  and 
permissible  in  the  case  of  necessitous  industries  like  coal 
mining  or  railroading,  but  no  such  regulation  would  be  made 
to  apply  to  smaller  and  less  important  lines  of  activity.  If 
such  a  remedy  were  found  to  work  well  and  serve  the  ends  of 
justice  in  the  major  industries,  it  would  inevitably  be  applied 
to  the  minor  ones.  In  fact  in  the  whirligig  of  legal  warfare 
over  the  innovation  it  rnight  be  deemed  necessary  to  make 
the  law  all-inclusive  in  order  to  avoid  some  such  pitfall  of 
class  legislation.  So  far  as  known.  State  interference  has 
never  proven  as  satisfactory  as  the  trade  agreement  method 
of  settling  disputes,  but  those  who  oppose  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  a  surrender  of  personal  liberty — "veiled  Socialism" 
is  the  incongruous  name  given  by  some — are  hastening  the 
day  when  what  they  profess  to  dread  the  most  will  be  ushered 
in.  And,  indeed,  that  would  not  be  a  new  thing.  Often  has 
it  occurred  that  the  reactionaries  who  opposed  any  recogni- 
tion of  new  conditions  have  been  the  most  valuable  aid  to 
radical  thought  and  methods. 

If  powerful  unions  are  the  parents  of  the  trade  agreement 
system,  it  is  none  the  less  true  that  the  prime  requisite  for 
its  maintenance  is  strong,  dominating  organizations  on  both 
sides  of  the  house.    With  the  employers  it  must  be  of  suf- 


TRADE  UNIONS  iiS 

ficient  force  to  compel  honest  adherence  to  the  scale  in  its 
field  of  operations.  The  uinons  must  be  in  such  a  position 
that  when  they  speak  it  is  the  last  word  on  their  side  of  the 
subject.  They  must  also  be  able  to  discipline  employees 
who  would  violate  the  terms  of  the  agreement.  If  they  are 
unable  to  do  this  employers  will  soon  complain,  and  with  jus- 
tice, for  an  agreement  with  an  organization  unable  to  control 
the  workers  at  the  trade  would  be  worse  than  farcical.  Sup- 
pose during  the  past  few  fat  years  the  Typographical  Union 
had  been  a  weak  institution,  unable  to  control  its  members, 
we  would  have  seen  the  spectacle  of  men  making  demands 
on  publishers  at  times  when  they  would  have  to  concede  or 
suffer  much  loss.  Methods  for  preserving  discipline  differ 
in  the  various  unions.  Some  rely  on  beneficial  systems; 
others  partly  on  the  closed  shop.  But  whatever  the  means, 
they  must  not  be  impaired,  for  with  the  advent  of  new 
responsibilities  there  is  need  for  more,  not  less,  power  in  the 
organization. 

The  main  objection  to  collective  bargaining  is  that  it  has 
in  some  instances  led  to  conspiracies  having  for  their  object 
the  fleecing  of  the  people.  The  cases  cited  have  been  excep- 
tional and  the  evil  was  short-lived.  But  this  is  not  an  intend- 
ed or  usual  outcome  of  the  trade  agreements.  In  truth,  the 
public  are  mulcted  most  in  industries  in  which  the  trade 
agreement  does  not  obtain.  This  species  of  robbery  may  be 
an  accompaniment  of  collective  bargaining  here  and  there, 
but  it  is  not  of  it,  and  its  root  is  to  be  found  elsewhere.  If 
we  want  to  give  battle  to  that  kind  of  wrong  we  are  better 
equipped  to  do  so  as  citizens  than  as  industrialists.  If  there 
were  not  a  trade  union  in  this  broad  land  the  consumer 
would  be  the  victim  of  such  get-rich-anyway  conspiracies. 

To  sum  up,  collective  bargaining  (i)  recognizes  the  right 
of  the  wage-earner  to  a  real  and  substantial  voice  in  deter- 
mining the  price  of  his  labor;  (2)  reduces  industrial  strife 
and  the  wastage  from  strikes  and  lockouts  to  a  minimum; 
(3)  provides  the  most  satisfactory  method  of  settling  dis- 
puted questions,  as  the  arbiters  are  experts  selected  by  each 
side,  and  (4)  it  is  the  best  safeguard  against  government 
interference  in  its  least  beneficent  and  most  obnoxious  form 
— compulsory  arbitration  or  its  approximate. 


ii6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Those  who  oppose  collective  bargaining  either  openly  or 
by  indirection  through  miserable  subterfuges  are  in  duty 
bound  to  show  us  a  way  out  which  will  furnish  the  workers 
equal  justice,  conserve  the  energies  of  the  people,  secure  as 
equitable  results  and  ward  off  the  ogre  of  government  con- 
trol of  wage  scales.  They  will  have  much  difficulty  in  doing 
this,  but  until  they  can  fill  the  bill  they  should  step  aside. 
To  be  a  mere  negationist  on  this  question  is  to  be  reaction- 
ary and  a  discourager  of  progress — a  bourbon  unaflEected  by 
the  growth  of  intelligence  or  the  change  of  conditions. 


Independent.  52:  1055-8.  May  3,  1900. 
Ethical  Side  of  Trade  Unionism.     Edward  W.  Bemis. 

The  trade  union  has  been  compared  to  the  modern  trust. 
It  is  strikingly  like  the  latter  in  some  respects,  and  different 
from  it  in  others.  Like  the  typical  trust,  many  trade  unions 
seek  to  obtain  a  monopoly  and  secure  monopoly  prices.  Sid- 
ney Webb  designates  the  principle  as  that  of  a  "compulsory 
maintenance  of  the  standard  of  life."  It  might  be  called  both 
the  compulsory  maintenance  and  the  elevation  of  this  stand- 
ard, so  far  as  that  is  dependent  on  wages,  hours  of  labor  and 
other  industrial  conditions. 

Under  the  present  economic  organization  of  society  the 
vast  mass  of  workmen  who  have  no  special  individual  repu- 
tation, as  has  the  lawyer,  the  physician,  the  teacher,  the  artist, 
and  the  writer,  are  in  fierce  competition  for  employment. 
Those  who  will  work  the  cheapest  are  likely  to  be  hired. 
Assuming  that  the  many  claimants  for  employment  have  all 
a  passable  knowledge  of  their  trade,  those  that  will  work 
the  cheapest  are  likely  to  be  hired.  Under  these  circum- 
stances a  species  of  cutthroat  competition  arises,  and  work- 
men, weak  individually,  without  much  tinancial  resource  or 
knowledge  of  trade  conditions,  are  under  the  temptation  to 
work  for  less  than  it  is  to  the  advantage  of  society  that  they 
should  receive.  Business  prosperity  is  advanced  by  a  high 
purchasing  power  among  the  masses.  To  develop  this  power 
is  vastly  more  important  and  permanent  in  its  eflfects  upon 
industrial  prosperity  than  the  crowding  upon  foreign  markets 


TRADE  UNIONS  117 

of  the  so-called  "surplus  products"  of  our  factories.  Under 
any  rational  distribution  of  income  our  industries  would  never 
have  much  unsalable  surplus  product,  even  if  there  were  no 
foreign  trade  whatever. 

It  has  been  likewise  conceded  by  most  investigators  that 
a  high  purchasing  power  among  the  many  increases  home 
decencies  and  comforts,  morals  and  education.  Sometimes 
the  saloon  is  chiefly  benefited  by  high  wages  and  short  hours, 
but  usually  the  reverse  is  true.  In  the  light  of  the  experi- 
ence of  England  and  America,  few  are  so  bold  as  to  deny- 
that  the  trade  union  movement  has  to  some  extent  improved 
the  industrial  condition  of  labor.  As  a  result  have  come  the 
social  and  ethical  advantages  just  mentioned.  Just  as  the 
trust,  jiowever,  often  refuses  to  deal  with  any  who  will  not 
confine  their  trade  to  the  trust,  so  the  union  often  refuses  to 
work  with  non-union  men.  It  is  a  policy  of  force,  not  very 
pleasant  to  contemplate,  and  yet  I  believe  entirely  defensible, 
and  even  necessary,  in  the  present  social  conditions,  so  far, 
at  least,  as  the  union  is  concerned.  If  it  is  a  good  thing  to 
raise  wages,  and  if  refusal  to  work  with  a  non-union  man 
increases  the  power  of  the  union  in  this  direction,  and  if  such 
refusal  is  not  inherently  sinful,  it  may  be  defended  as  an 
interference  with  one's  freedom  of  action  in  order  to  secure 
greater  freedom  from  poverty  for  all,  since  any  general  rise 
in  the  wages  of  a  trade  secured  by  a  combination  of  work- 
men is  likely  to  raise  wages  even  in  establishments  where 
only  non-union  labor  is  employed. 

While  the  union  resembles  the  trust  in  many  of  its  aims 
and  methods,  it  differs  from  it  in  the  following  essential 
points:  The  labor  organization  benefits  millions  instead  of 
thousands;  it  aids  the  poor  who  need  improved  social  condi- 
tions rather  than  the  rich  who  do  not;  it  is  far  more  demo- 
cratie  in  its  organization,  for  the  labor  union  usually  admits 
to  its  membership  at  any  time  all  good  workmen  of  the 
trade  who  wish  to  join,  and  on  terms  of  perfect  equality, 
with  equal  chance  with  the  old  members  to  secure  the  of- 
ficial positions  of  control  and  emolument.  We  are  all  familiar 
with  how,  when  the  financially  weak  are  taken  into  the  trust, 
they  are  usually  given  only  subordinate  position,  and  if 
allowed    to   become   minority   stockholders    are    still    at    the 


Ii8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

mercy  of  the  few  who  control  the  majority  of  the  stock. 
It  is  probable  that  the  labor  union  does  not  stimulate  its 
members  to  the  keenest  exertions  as  much  as  does  the  trust 
but  this  is  only  part  of  the  general  weakness  of  the  wage 
system,  which  does  not  find  any  way  of  giving  the  workman 
as  much  interest  in  the  business  as  have  the  owners.  On  the 
other  hand  the  union  has  not  such  a  bad  influence  upon 
political  conditions  as  has  the  giant  corporation,  which  is 
constantly  seeking  favors  and  discriminations  from  taxing 
and  franchise-giving  bodies  and  from  the  railroads.  The  ex- 
tent to  which  legislation  in  the  interest  of  our  great  corpora- 
tions, especially  our  monopolies  and  trusts,  is  a  pure  matter 
of  bargain  and  sale  in  nearly  all  of  our  legislative  and 
council  chambers  would  horrify  the  country  if  really  under- 
stood in  all  its  enormity.  The  direct  ethical  aspect  of  trade 
unionism  is  seen  in  its  relief  of  those  in  distress,  whether 
from  lack  of  work,  old  age,  sickness,  or  death  of  the  bread- 
winner. 

The  one  hundred  principal  trade  unions  of  Great  Britain, 
with  a  membership  in  1898  of  1,043,476,  or  about  60  per  cent, 
of  the  total  membership  of  all  the  unions,  spent  during  the 
seven  years,  1892-1898,  inclusive,  for  friendly  and  benevolent 
purposes,  59  per  cent,  of  their  total  expenses,  while  another 
18  per  cent,  was  devoted  to  working  expenses  of  various 
kinds,  and  only  23  per  cent,  to  dispute  benefits.  American 
trade  unions  are  much  younger,  and  these  admirable  benefit 
features  come  with  age.  Less  than  one-sixth  of  our  tr^ide 
unions  were  in  existence  in  1880,  and  they  then  embraced 
less  than  one-tenth  of  the  existing  membership,  of  perhaps 
one  million,  of  all  American  unions,  while  one-third  of  the 
present  British  unions  were  in  existence  twenty  years  ago, 
and  in  those  unions  to-day  are  over  60  per  cent,  of  all  the 
British  trade  unionists.  In  1880  only  5,590  members  of 
American  national  trade  unions  were  in  receipt  of  other  than 
strike  benefits  from  their  national  organizations,  yet  in  New 
York  State  alone,  in  1894.  when  there  were  155.843  members 
of  labor  organizations  in  the  State,  541  of  these  organizations, 
representing  121,957  members,  or  possibly  one-fifth  of  all 
those  organized  at  that  time  in  the  United  States  had  ex- 
penditures for  the  year  of  $511,817.59,  of  which  $260,447.59,  or 


TRADE  UNIONS  119 

51  per  cent.,  was  spent  for  benefits  other  than  trade  dis- 
putes, and  it  is  probable  that  the  same  was  true  of  a  part  of 
another  30  per  cent,  reported  as  spent  for  "benefits  not  clas- 
sified." The  membership  of  the  New  York  unions  had  grown 
to  209,120  on  September  30th,  1899,  and  there  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  the  amount  spent  in  insurance  and  aid  to 
members  has  continued  to  grow  more  than  proportionately 
to  the  increase  of  numbers.  In  fact,  without  such  a  carefully 
guarded  national  system  of  labor  insurance  as  prevails  in 
Germany  or  such  safeguards  as  can  be  adopted  in  enormous 
railroad  systems  like  the  Pennsylvania  and  the  Baltimore  & 
Ohio,  it  is  almost  impossible  to  insure  workingmen  against 
sickness  and  disability  unless  through  their  own  organizations. 
The  latter  can  quickly  detect  shamming,  for  every  member 
is  personally  interested  as  a  contributor  in  preventing  im- 
position by  fellow  members.  When  we  consider  that  during 
the  severe  winter  of  1893-4,  when  so  many  were  out  of 
work,  not  a  single  application  for  relief  came  to  the  chari- 
ties organizations  of  Chicago  from  any  trade  union  members, 
and  when  we  realize  the  self-respect  that  self  insurance  of 
this  kind  gives,  we  can  understand  an  important  ethical  as- 
pect of  the  trade  union  movement  which  is  not  sufficiently 
recognized. 

Against  this  some  would  place  the  supposed  restriction 
on  tbe  number  of  apprentices  by  the  unions.  It  is  said  that 
there  is  a  conspiracy  against  the  American  boy  and  against 
trade  instruction.  An  investigation  of  this  matter  for  an 
article  which  I  contributed  to  the  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  for  September,  1894, 
showed  that  many  trade  unions,  such  as  those  upon  the  rail- 
roads, have  no  such  restrictions,  and  that  in  most  other  cases 
the  number  of  apprentices,  as,  for  example,  among  the  print- 
ing establishments  of  Chicago  or  New  York,  is  less  than 
the  trade  union  rules  allow.  This  means  that  the  greatest 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  apprenticeship  lies  not  in  the  unions, 
but  in  the  American  boy,  who  does  not  want  to  undergo  an 
apprentice's  training,  and  the  employer,  who  does  not  care  to 
bother  with  him.  The  solution  of  trade  instruction  will  lie 
with  manual  training  and  technical  schools,  supported  by 
public  and  private  eflForts,  as  in  Germany  and  England,  and, 


I20  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

as  we  are  beginning  to  see,  in  our  State  agricultural  colleges, 
and  in  some  of  our  city  schools. 

The  attitude  of  our  unions  on  the  temperance  question 
has  been  a  matter  of  special  investigation  on  my  part  within 
a  ffw  months.  About  a  dozen  organizations,  with  aboyt 
180,000  members,  report  a  very  marked  antagonism  to  the 
saloon.  For  example,  Mr.  Robert  B.  Kerr,  Secretary-Treas- 
urer of  the  International  Brotherhood  of  Blacksmiths,  with 
3,000  members,  writes: 

"Both  Pre.sident  Slocum  and  myself,  as  well  as  the  other 
members  of  the  Executive  Board  of  this  order,  have  done  every- 
thing possible  to  oppose  the  saloon  and  its  influences  among  our 
members.  I  wish  to  go  on  record  as  saying  that  I  consider  the 
saloon  to  be  the  greatest  enemy  to  organized  labor  that  exists 
at  the  present  time,  as  indeed  it  is  to  all  other  progressive  move- 
ments of  whatever  kind.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  none  of 
our  locals  meet  in  halls  connected  with  saloons;  as  a  general 
thing  meetings  of  trade  unions  are  held  in  halls  belonging  to 
the  trades  and  labor  councils  or  to  some  of  the  fraternal  socle- 
ties." 

The  general  secretary-treasurer,  Mr.  Lee  M.  Hart,  of  the 
National  Alliance  of  Theatrical  Stage  Employees,  with  a 
membership  of  4,000,  writes  that  they  have  "very  stringent 
laws  compelling  temperance  on  the  part  of  every  member." 

Mr.  E.  E.  Clark,  head  of  the  Railway  Conductors,  writes: 

The  good  effects  of  the  trades  unions  upon  their  members 
are  apparent  to  the  most  casual  observer.  The  general  character 
and  social  standing  of  the  employees  In  trades  which  are  thor- 
oughly well  organized  is  so  radically  different  from  what  it  was 
before  they  had  organizations  that  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  on 
that  score.  Intemperance  has  materially  decreased;  thrift  and  In- 
dustriousness  have  Increased,  and  the  percentage  of  men  who 
own  their  own  homes  is  very  much  larger  among  members  of 
trade  unions  than  among  any  equal  number  of  men  who  do  not 
belong  to  the  unions.  The  general  Influence  of  labor  organizations 
has  been  to  elevate  the  character  of  the  men,  and  those  influences 
are  still  at   work." 

Mr.  J.   Ford,  Jr.,  editor  of  the  Switchman's  Union,  writes : 

"In  our  obligation  there  is  a  clause  which  states,  'I  will 
not  recommend  any  one  for  membership  in  this  organization 
whom  I  know  to  he  a  common  drunkard."  I,  myself,  am  a  total 
abstainer,  and  likewise,  also.  Is  the  Grand  Master,  the  Grand 
Secretary  and  Treasurer,  and  the  Vice-Grand  Master.  I  visited 
some  of  the  subordinate  lodges  this  summer  and  at  every  place 
I  spoke  against  the  use  of  liquor.  I  have  also  written  against  it 
in  our  official   organ." 

He  says  the  trade  union  elevates  its  members 
"morally,  socially  and  intellectually,  makes  them  better  husbands, 
fathers,  workmen  or  citizens.  In  fact,  a  laboring  man  who  does 
not  belong  to  the  organization  which  represents  its  labor,  in 
my  estimation,  is  not  a  good  citizen.  Years  ago,  before  the 
switchmen   were   organized,    they    received    $1.50    per   day.      They 


TRADE  UNIONS  121 


were  a  roving  class.  Today,  through  organization,  they  are 
getting'  25  cents  and  29  cents  per  hour,  and  a  good  many  of  them 
have  homes  and  are  educating  their  children  to  fill  any  position 
in  life.     All  this  is  due  to  organization." 

Mr.  J.  B.  Lennon,  secretary  of  the  Journeyman  Tailors, 
writes: 

"I  can  well  remember  when  there  could  be  found  in  no  city 
from  Sunday  until  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  of  the  following  week 
any  tailors  who  were  sufficiently  sober  to  work  at  their  trade, 
or  if  any  they  were  very  few  indeed.  I  believe  most  earnestly 
that  organization  has  been  the  cause  that  has  cured  and  elimi- 
nated this  evil.  You  can  now  go  to  the  same  cities  where  our 
unions  have  existed  from  ten  to  twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  and 
you  will  scarcely  find  a  single  member  of  the  organization  that 
is  a  habitual  drunkard.  The  officers  of  our  organization,  myself 
Included,  are  decidedly  opposed  to  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors 
as  a  beverage,  and  I  have  not  failed,  whenever  the  opportunity 
presented  itself,  to  declare  myself  upon  this  question." 

The  secretaries  of  other  unions,  numbering  over  100,000 
members,  report  considerable  opposition  to  the  saloon,  while 
a  third  group,  of  nearly  200,000  members,  report  that  their 
insurance  departments  are  a  great  encouragement  to  tem- 
perance, because  sickness,  accident  and  disability  benefits  are 
forfeited  if  the  misfortune  has  been  caused  by  drink,  while 
all  the  unions  appear  to  consider,  with  truth,  that  the  social 
atmosphere  of  the  union  supplies  some  of  the  needs  of  human 
nature  that  usually  draw  men  to  the  saloon. 

Our  trade  unions  have  been  the  most  active  force  in  secur- 
ing compulsory  education,  factory  legislation,  employers'  lia- 
bility acts,  free  public  employment  bureaus,  bureaus  of  labor 
statistics,  boards  of  arbitration,  sanitary  laws  for  workers, 
the  regulation  or  prohibition  of  sweatshops  the  early  closing 
of  stores,  and  the  eight-hour  day,  while  they  have  co-operated 
heartily  with  efforts  of  other  classes  in  securing  the  prohibi- 
tion of  most  kinds  of  Sunday  labor. 

Recognizing,  then,  that  pur  own  rapidly  growing  labor 
organizations  are  not  directly  seeking  to  increase  the  skill  or 
efficiency  of  their  members,  but  to  secure  better  terms  from 
the  employer  and  better  protection  from  the  State,  we  are 
bound  to  admit  that  in  the  accomplishment  of  these  ends  a 
better  standard  of  living  and  higher  ethical  ideals  are  grad- 
ually developed.  By  all  odds  the  worst  feature  of  American 
unions  is  the  readiness  of  many  of  their  leaders  to  desert 
their  organizations  for  political  plums,  under  our  spoils  sys- 
tem or  for  other  selfish  reasons.     Fortunately  the  rank  and 


122  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

file  of  the  unions  are  beginning  to  recognize  this  and  to  seek" 
more  disinterested  leadership. 

The  unions  greatly  need  the  friendly  counsel  and  co- 
operation of  those  better  educated  and  more  fortunately  situ- 
ated, who  are  enthusiastic  to  work  and  suffer  if  thereby  these 
promising  organizations  of  labor  can  more  nearly  approach 
their  ideals.  Will  not  some  would-be  followers  of  Jesus 
realize  that  the  giving  of  such  co-operation  to  organized 
labor  is  a  truly  Christian  duty? 

Independent.  66:  182-5.  January  28,  igog. 
Nemo  Me  Impune  Lacessit.     A.  J.  Portenar. 

In  order  to  determine  the  nature  and  extent  of  Mr.  Gom- 
pers's  ofifense  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire  what  effect  his  an- 
nouncement in  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list  had;  upon 
whom  it  had  such  effect,  and  why  it  had  such  effect. 

When  the  list  has  any  influence  on  the  action  of  one 
who  reads  it,  it  can  only  have  such  influence  if  the  reader  is 
in  sympathy  with  the  object  of  the  list.  If  he  has  that  sym- 
pathy he  will  voluntarily  discriminate  against  the  products 
mentioned  in  that  list.  Surely  it  cannot  be  contended  that 
he  has  not  a  right  so  to  discriminate.  Upon  one  who  is  in- 
different or  hostile  to  the  trades  union  movement,  the  list 
will  either  have  no  effect  at  all,  or  else  will  cause  him  to  act 
in  a  manner  entirely  contrary  to  the  effect  sought  by  Mr. 
Gompcrs  in  making  the  public  announcement.  In  either  case, 
Mr.  Gompers  does  not  control  and  has  not  sought  to  control 
the  actions  of  those  persons  who  may  read  this  list.  If  he 
has  made  no  attempt  to  coerce  any  one  into  following  a  given 
line  of  action,  then  whatever  offense  he  may  be  deemed 
guilty  of  must  consist  solely  in  the  fact  of  the  publication 
itself,  regardless  of  whether  anybody  was  influenced  thereby 
or  not. 

At  the  risk  of  suit  for  damages  in  a  civil  action  or  prose- 
cution for  criminal  libel,  a  newspaper  may  publish  anything. 
Freely  using  this  privilege,  newspapers  have  published  stories 
to  influence  stock  market  prices,  without  being  over  scrup- 
ulous  as  to  whether   the   stories  were   true;   they  have   dis- 


TRADE  UNIONS  123 

seminated  serious  charges  reflecting  upon  candidates  for  pub- 
lic office  close  to  elections,  so  as  to  give  no  opportunity  for 
denial  or  refutation,  also  without  careful  scrutiny  of  their 
truth,  or  even  with  positive  knowledge  of  their  falsity;  they 
have  spread  scandalous  tales  concerning  the  private  affairs  of 
individuals,  for  malicious  reasons  or  to  make  a  racy  story. 
All  this  may  be  borne  with  equanimity;  but  the  limit  is 
reached,  the  line  of  toleration  is  overstept,  the  "absolute" 
freedom  of  the  press  must  be  curtailed  by  the  order  of  a 
court,  when  the  editor  of  a  labor  paper  informs  his  readers 
that  a  certain  manufacturer  discriminates  against  those  very 
readers  by  employing  non-union  men.  It  is  not  claimed  that 
the  information  is  untrue.  It  cannot  be  claimed  that  union 
men  must  not  be  told  this  truth  because  they  have  no  right 
to  bestow  their  patronage  where  they  please.  It  will  not  be 
claimed  that  they  will  please  to  bestow  their  patronage  upon 
their  avowed  enemies. 

It  is  true  that  the  good-will  of  a  business  is  often  bought 
and  sold,  and  that  it  may  be  very  valuable.  But  if  a  man 
sells  to  another  the  good-will  of  his  business  together  with 
the  stock  and  appurtenances  thereof,  is  he  assured  that  he 
can  make  delfvery  of  what  he  has  sold?  And  if,  for  any  rea- 
son or  out  of  pure  caprice,  his  former  customers  refuse  their 
patronage  to  his  successor,  can  the  latter  demand  delivery  of 
what  he  bought?  Can  he  sue  and  recover  the  purchase  price 
of  the  good-will  in  the  same  manner  as  he  might  if  the  stock 
was  misrepresented  as  to  quality  or  amount?  He  cannot; 
and  hence  it  follows  that  while  good-will  might  be  called 
property  in  a  certain  sense,  it  is  still  true  that  no  man  can 
have  a  property  right  in  the  custom  of  any  other  man.  If 
he  had,  the  seller  could  deliver  and  the  purchaser  demand 
the  patronage  of  the  persons  whose  good-will  was  paid  for, 
and  those  persons  would  be  bound  to  spend  their  money  with 
those  who  had  a  vested  right  to  such  patronage,  and  not 
wherever  their  inclinations  might  lead  them. 

I  therefore  fail  to  see  what  ofTense  was  committed  by  Mr. 
Gompers,  either  in  the  publication  per  se,  or  in  the  effect 
that  might  be  attained  upon  others  by  the  publication. 

Now,  a  word  as  to  the  contempt  for  which  Mr.  Gompers 
was  sentenced  to  imprisonment. 


124  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

If  the  Constitution,  without  qualification,  says  that  I  may 
do  a  certain  thing,  and  a  judge  in  his  wisdom  orders  me  to 
desist  from  doing  that  thing,  what  should  be  my  attitude?. 
Must  I  surrender  my  constitutional  rights  upon  his  arbitrary 
order?  True,  if  it  is  a  judge  of  an  inferior  court  who  makes 
the  order,  I  may  appeal  from  his  decision,  but  while  my 
appeal  drags  its  slow  way  thru  the  courts  my  rights  are 
destroyed,  and  even  should  my  appeal  eventually  be  sustained, 
I  have  none  the  less  been  unjustly  withheld  from  the  exercise 
of  my  guaranteed  privileges,  and  that  without  any  hope  of 
redress  against  the  judge  who  so  deprived  me. 

If  I  disobey,  I  am  in  contempt.  Now,  it  is  difficult  to 
maintain  the  position  that  any  man  may  disobey  the  order  of 
a  court  when  he  feels  that  he  is  aggrieved  thereby.  Never- 
theless, it  would  not  be  difficult  to  find  instances  where  men 
have  disobeyed  statutes  and  courts,  and  have  been  applauded 
therefor.  That  which  is  legal  may  still  be  unjust,  and  there 
is  no  wrong  so  hard  to  bear  with  fortitude  as  a  wrong  im- 
posed by  the  forms  of  law.  Obedience  to  the  law  and  the 
courts  is  necessary  as  a  rule  of  conduct,  but  it  is  conceivable 
that  disobedience  may  at  times  be  the  more  righteous  atti- 
tude. • 

But  let  us  leave  the^  case  of  Mr.  Gompers  and  consider  the 
boycott  in  a  general  way.  In  that  connection  I  must  refer 
to  certain  language  used  by  Mr.  Wheeler,  from  which  I  infer 
that  he  is  laboring  under  a  mistaken  impression: 

"So  with  a  man's  labor.  It  is  his  property,  and  a  sacred  and 
indispensable  property.  He  is  free  to  sell  it  or  to  refuse  to  sell. 
But  once  he  contracts  to  give  his  labor,  the  person  with  whom 
the  contract  is  made  has  property  in  its  performance.  ...  In 
the  long  run,  the  sacredness  of  contracts  means  more  to  the 
labor  union  than  to  the  employer.  What  the  honest  workman 
wants  Is  steady  work  on  terms  to  which  he  has  freely  agreed, 
and  the  performance  of  which   he  can  enforce." 

Does  Mr.  Wheeler  believe  that  the  mechanic  or  laborer 
has  contractual  relations  with  his  employer  which  he  can 
enforce  in  the  courts?  Does  he  not  know  that  the  terms 
upon  which  he  is  employed  are  such  as  he  can  obtain  in  com- 
petition with  his  fellows,  terminable  at  any  moment,  with  or 
without  good  cause?  Does  he  not  know  that  the  only  re- 
straint upon  the  employer's  absolute  domination  is  in  the 
union  for  mutual  protection  or  advancement  of  the  em- 
ployees?   In  theory,  of  course,  the  workman  freely  assents 


TRADE  UNIONS  125 


to  the  terms  of  his  employment,  and  may  leave  it  as  readily 
as  the  employer  may  discharge  him,  but  is  it  so  in  fact? 
Permit  me  to  quote  from  an  article  in  the  independent  of 
October  24th,  1907: 

"Freedom  of  contract  presupposes  the  equality  of  the  con- 
tracting parties.  What  sort  of  equality  exists  between  the  own- 
er of  land;  machinery  and  capital  on  the  one  side,  and  the  owner 
of  nothing  but  a  pair  of  hands  on  the  other?  It  has  been  forcibly 
said  that  most  worl^men  have  not  a  month's  wages  between  them- 
selves and  the  almshouse.  Thus  the  'freedom'  of  one  of  the  par- 
ties is  fatally  circumscribed  by  the  imperative  character  of  his 
necessities.  Now,  if  the  position  of  the  workman  is  still  fur- 
ther prejudiced  by  the  fact  that  three  men  are  seeking  one  job, 
will  it  be  contended  that  any  other  'freedom'  remains  but  that 
of  taking  what  he  can  get — with  the  alternative  of  starving? 

"The  union  confers  with  the  employer  as  a  representative  of 
the  individuals  who  compose  it.  All  the  questions  surrounding 
employment  in  an  industry  are  discussed,  with  the  result  that 
written  contracts  for  a  definite  period  of  time  are  agreed  upon, 
at  living  wages  and  for  reasonable  hours." 

Such  employers  as  Mr.  Van  Cleave,  Mr.  Post  or  Mr. 
Parry  refuse  to  treat  with  a  union  as  equal  parties  to  a  con- 
tract. They  usually  declare  that  they  are  going  to  run  their 
own  business  without  interference.  But  while  they  discrim- 
inate against  union  men,  they  are  filled  with  virtuous  indig- 
nation when  union  men  retaliate  by  discriminating  against 
them.  It  is  quite  proper  for  Mr.  Van  Cleave,  as  president 
of  the  Manufacturers'  Association,  to  advise  the  collection  of 
a  fund  of  $500,000  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  fighting  or- 
ganized labor,  but  it  is  highly  improper  for  union  men  to 
refuse  to  spend  their  money  on  Mr.  Van  Cleave's  stoves, 
and  thus  furnish  him  with  the  munitions  of  war  to  be  used 
against  themselves.  To  summarize,  Mr.  Van  Cleave  may 
exercise  his  constitutional  right  to  be  a  non-union  employer 
and  to  injure  the  business  of  union  men  by  an  active  cam- 
paign against  them,  but  union  men  may  on  no  account  in- 
jure his  business  by  an  active  campaign  against  him.  Inci- 
dentally, I  wonder  if  Judge  Wright  would  issue  an  injunction 
against  the  Manufacturers'  Association  restraining  them  from 
giving  money  to  the  Typothetas  to  enable  them  to  make  a 
fight  against  the  eight-hour  day  asked  for  by  the  International 
Typographical  Union.  Injunctions  have  been  issued  restrain- 
ing union  men  from  paying  assessments  for  the  support  of 
strikers.  Can  it  be  that  it  makes  a  difference  whose  ox  is 
gored? 


126  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Again  I  quote  Mr.  Wheeler: 

"It  will  be  asked:  What  would  you  designate  as  Illegal  acts? 
I  answer:  Interference  with  the  property  rights  of  others,  whether 
employer  or  employed.     The  blacklist  ought  to  be  illegal." 

Ingenuous  Mr.  Wheeler!  Yes,  the  blacklist  ought  to  be 
illegal,  but  it  is  not,  and  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  Adair 
case  decided  that  a  statute  which  forbade  the  discharge  of  a 
man  because  of  his  membership  in  a  union  was  unconstitu- 
tional. So  my  only  property — my  ability  to  labor — may  be 
interfered  with  if  I  desire  to  be  a  member  of  a  union,  but  I 
and  the  other  members  of  the  union  must  respect  the  "prop- 
erty right"  of  him  who  injured  us  to  sell  us  the  goods  he 
will  not  employ  us  to  make. 

Mr.  Wheeler  takes  issue  with  Mr.  Gompers  because  the 
latter  said  the  labor  union  is  not  a  trust: 

"There  again  is  the  fundamental  mistake  that  a  combination 
is  not  a  trust  because  it  deals  only  with  immaterial  things.  They 
are   just   as    much    the    subject    of    property    as    material    things." 

To  Mr.  Wheeler's  ideas  on  the  labor  union  as  a  trust  let 
me  oppose  the  words  of  the  Honorable  John  Morley,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  present  British  Government,  and  a  man  known 
thruout  the  civilized  world  for  his  humanitarianism: 

"There  is  all  the  difference  In  the  world  between  the  self- 
ishness of  a  capitalist  and  the  so-called  selfishness  of  a 
great  trade  society.  The  one  means  an  increase  of  self-indul- 
gent luxury  for  one  man  or  a  single  family;  the  other  means 
an  increase  of  decency,  increase  of  comfort,  increase  of  self-re- 
spect; more  ease  for  the  aged,  more  schooling  for  the  young,  not 
of  one  family,  but  of  a  thousand,  or  ten  thousand  families.  Others 
may  call  that  selfishness,  if  they  please;  I  call  it  humanity  and 
civilization,  and  the   furtherance  of  the  commonwealth." 

Now,  look  at  this  "other  flaw"  that  Mr.  Wheeler  found, 
and  how  he  meets  it: 

"One  other  flaw  in  Mr.  Gomper's  argument  requires  considera- 
tion. He  maintains  that  an  act  lawful  in  the  individual  ought 
not  to  be  unlawful  to  a  combination.  Let  us  see.  If  one  man 
enters  my  house  and  behaves  decently  he  is  welcome.  But  If 
a  thousand  men  come  at  once  and  fill  it,  they  violate  my  right  to 
use  my  own  house." 

It  appears  to  me  that  there  is  a  flaw  in  Mr.  Wheeler's 

illustration.     One    man    may   be   welcomed   in    Mr.    Wheeler's 

house,  but  he  has  no  right  there.     One  man  can  just  as  eflFect- 

ually  violate  his  right  to  use  his  own  home  as  a  thousand, 

and   neither   the   one   nor  the   thousand    may   enter   without 

Mr.  Wheeler's  permission.     But  one  man  may  refuse  to  buy 

Mr.  Van   CIcave's  stoves,  and  a  thousand  may  do  likewise, 

and  each  of  them  and  all  of  them  no  more  lose  their  individ- 


TRADE  UNIONS  127 

ual  rights  in  such  a  case  because  they  think  alike  and  act 
alike  than  they  would  if  they  voted  against  Mr.  Van  Cleave 
for  a  public  office  because  they  think  alike  and  act  alike. 
They  may  request  any  man  to  boycott  Mr.  Van  Cleave  at 
the  polls.  Why  may  they  not  request  any  man  to  boycott 
Mr.  Van  Cleave  in  a  hardware  store? 

The  boycott  has  been  harshly  characterized  of  late  years, 
as  tho  it  were  a  new  contrivance  by  the  powers  of  darkness, 
used  only  by  those  sons  of  Belial,  the  members  of  labor 
unions.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  boycott  is  as  old  as  man- 
kind. But  is  only  anathema  when  applied  by  the  afore- 
said offspring  of  Beelzebub.  It  is  even  a  laudable  and  pa- 
triotic thing  at  other  times.  Some  years  ago  the  Philadel- 
phia Councils  contemplated  a  particularly  outrageous  raid 
on  the  people's  property.  Among  other  methods  of  convinc- 
ing the  City  Fathers  that  they  were  about  to  do  an  evil 
thing  a  proposal  was  made  to  boycott  the  Councilmen  and 
their  families.  No  one  was  to  speak  to  them,  to  do  business 
with  them,  or  have  any  human  relation  with  them.  Their 
children  were  to  be  shunned  in  the  schools,  and  their  wives 
to  be  ignored  in  the  streets  and  shops.  The  plan  was  car- 
ried out  and  in  a  few  days  the  obnoxious  ordinance  was 
abandoned.  One  Councilman  admitted  that  the  boycott  on 
his  family  brought  him  to  terms  quicker  than  any  other 
method  could  have  done.  Was  anything  cruel  and  un-Amer- 
ican done  there?  If  there  was,  neither  the  newspapers  nor 
Mr.  Wheeler  said  so.  The  people  of  Philadelphia  were 
attacked  and  they  defended  themselves.  But  how  the  light- 
ning flashes  and  the  thunder  roars  when  trades  unions  show 
that  they  will  not  submit  to  injury  without  retaliation! 

The  boycott  when  used  by  labor  unions  has  been  uni- 
formly declared  illegal  by  the  courts,  and  continuously  as- 
sailed with  vituperative  fury  by  the  editors  of  newspapers, 
and  by  the  sort  of  correspondent  who  signs  himself  "Jus- 
titia"  or  "Pro  Bono  Publico."  Why?  Because  it  is  effec- 
tive. And  the  reason  it  is  eflfoctive  is  because  those  to 
whom  such  an  appeal  is  made  are  in  natural  sympathy  with 
those  who  make  it.  Remember  the  motto  of  trades  union- 
ism:    "The  concern  of  one  is  the  concern  of  all." 

Trades   unionism    has    never    been    handed    anything.     It 


128  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

has  been  compelled  to  fight  for  everything  it  got.  The 
sarpe  violent  outcry  that  is  now  raised  against  the  boycott 
when  applied  by  union  men,  was  once  directed  against  the 
idea  of  unionism  itself.  Laws  and  courts  and  eminent  citi- 
zens of  former  days  have  been  as  harrowed  in  soul  and  as 
vociferously  indignant  in  written  and  spoken  language  over 
the  thought  of  any  combination  among  workmen  for  any 
purpose  as  they  are  today  over  the  boycott.  But  "unionism 
is  militant;  mighty  changes  have  been  wrought  in  the  past 
century,  and  the  fighting  spirit  is  in  no  wise  quenched. 

Metropolitan  Magazine.  31:  346-56.  December,  1909. 
Programme  of  the  Labor  Unions.     Frank  Julian  Warne. 

In  one  of  the  twenty  yellow  pine  boxes  taken  by  boat 
from  New  York  City  up  the  East  River  to  Potter's  Field 
near  Hell  Gate  one  day  recently,  was  the  body  of  an  indus- 
trial toiler  who  in  life  had  been  a  metal  polisher. 

It  is  not  generally  known  that  on  a  cross  above  the 
paupers'  graves  in  Potter's  Field  is  the  inscription:  "He 
calleth  His  own  by  name." 

But  the  coffin  of  our  metal  polisher  bore  only  a  number, 
and  as  a  number  the  body  was  buried.  This  industrial  toiler, 
at  the  age  of  only  forty-two,  had  arrived  at  the  end  of 
Poverty  Road.  He  left  behind  in  dire  want  a  sick  wife  and 
four  underfed  children,  all  of  whom  became  public  charges. 

Charity  tabulated  the  cause  of  the  poverty  ensuing  to 
the  wife  and  children  "as  death  of  bread-winner."  It  could 
have  been  designated  with  equal  truthfulness  as  "no  male 
support,"  or  "large  family,"  or  "no  relations,"  or  "death  of 
husband  and  father,"  or  possibly  "old  age,"  or  any  one  of  a 
score  and  more  classifications  or  terms  familiar  to  readers 
of  reports  of  charitable  societies. 

But  the  really  important  fact  would  not  be  tabulated: 
the  vtan  was  a  victim  of  his  trade.  In  life  our  metal  polisher 
had  toiled  at  an  occuf>ation  in  which  many  of  its  zvorkers  die 
from  pulmonary  tuberculosis. 

More  than  88  per  cent,  of  the  deaths  among  the  members 
of  a  local  metal  polishers'  union  in  New  York  City  are  due 


TRADE  UNIONS  129 

to  tuberculosis  contracted  at  their  trade.  There  is  hardly 
another  occupation  more  deleterious  to  the  health  of  the 
workers,  and  metal  polishers  at  the  age  of  forty  often  look 
like  old  men.  They  get  their  lungs  full  of  the  dust  of 
metals,  minerals,  and  cotton  fibre.  "A  buffing  wheel  making 
2,500  revolutions  a  minute  has  wrecked  many  constitutions." 
The  nature  of  the  metal  polisher's  work  is  not  compatible 
with  longevity  and,  as  at  rule,  the  workmen  engaged  at  it 
are  not  long-lived.  Our  metal  polisher  who  was  buried  in 
Potter's  Field,  unprotected  while  at  work  from  the  injurious 
effects  of  his  employment,  had  contracted  the  disease  of  his 
particular  occupation. 

Metal  polishing  is  only  one  of  a  hundred  trades  inimical 
to  the  health  of  our  workers,  and  our  pauper  metal  polisher 
was  only  one  of  thousands  of  workmen  who  each  year  need- 
lessly pay  the  death  toll  of  unhealthful  occupations. 

"Well,"  you  niay  say,  "there  must  be  metal  polishers.  It 
is  a  hazardous  trade,  but  men  can  be  found  to  work  at  any- 
thing, and  I  don't  see  what  you  are  going  to  do  about  it." 

True,  men  will  work  at  anything  because  they  must;  they 
will  endanger  their  lives  because  they  must.  We  cannot  pre- 
vent their  working  and  we  cannot  remove  the  hazard  entirely ; 
but  we  can  greatly  reduce  it.    Listen : 

Frederick  L.  Hoffman  writing  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  of  the  United  States  Government,  says : 

Since  it  Is  possible,  by  intelligent  factory  inspection  and  con- 
trol, and  with  especial  regard  to  ventilation  (that  is,  the  removal 
of  injurious  dust  particles  at  the  point  of  their  origin)  to  almost 
entirely  eliminate  the  conditions  injurious  to  health  and  life  in 
factories  and  workshops  and  industry  generally,  it  is  not  going 
too  far  to  advance  it  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  sanitary  legis- 
lation that  the  consumption  death  rate  among  wage-earners  can 
be  reduced  by  intelligent  methods  to  a  ratio  as  low  as  1.5  per 
thousand,  (almost  one-half  the  present  rate) such  a  re- 
duction would  result  In  an  annual  saving  of  approximately  22,238 
human  lives. 

The  Trade   Union  to  the  Rescue. 

That  the  deaths  of  workers  from  unhealthful  occupations, 
with  all  their  accompanying  sickness  and  ensuing  poverty, 
are  not  greater  is  due  as  much  to  the  activities  of  the  labor 
or  trade  union  as  to  any  other  single  agency.  That  the  dan- 
gers from  such  employment  are  constantly  being  reduced  is 


130  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

also  to  the  credit  largely  of  organized  labor.  Through  these 
unions  the  workers  are  effecting  revolutions  in  factory  man- 
agement and  regulation;  they  are  responsible  to  a  great  ex- 
tent for  the  creation  of  state  departments  or  bureaus  of 
labor,  with  their  extensive  machinery  for  mine  and  factory 
inspection;  and  also  for  much  of  the  efficiency  with  which 
these  departments  are  conducted.  By  means  of  strikes  and 
trade  agreements  the  unions  are  enforcing  upon  employers 
better  sanitary  conditions  in  the  working  places;  through 
protests  to  boards  of  health  they  eradicate  many  unhygienic 
evils;  and  in  various  other  ways  the  worker  through  the 
trade  union  is  bringing  about  healthier  conditions  of  em- 
ployment in  scores  and  scores  of  industries. 

The  Power  of  the  Label 

Probably  the  most  important  of  the  many  means  em- 
ployed by  the  union  to  this  end  is  the  union  label.  Sixty- 
four  national  and  international  unions,  operating  in  nearly 
every  State  and  comprising  a  membership  of  nearly  two 
million  toilers,  have  each  adopted  separate  symbols  which 
are  printed  on  stickers  and  pasted  (or  stamped  or  sewed)  on 
the  article  which  the  members  are  engaged  in  producing. 
This  label  states  that  the  goods  bearing  it  were  made  under 
union  conditions;  it  guarantees  to  the  purchaser  that  these 
conditions  were  healthful  and  sanitary,  and  the  union  mem- 
bers see  that  they  are  so.  To  compel  the  establishment  of 
such  conditions  and  the  use  by  the  employer  of  the  label, 
the  union  sometimes  employs  the  boycott  and  the  strike. 
In  1900  as  many  as  22,315,000  labels  were  being  used  in  a 
single  year  by  the  cigar-makers'  union  alone;  the  hatters' 
union  issues  more  than  one  million  a  month. 

The  union  label  is  coming  more  and  more  to  be  an  instru- 
ment of  great  economic  power  in  protecting  the  worker  against 
unhealthful  conditions  of  employment  and  in  reducing  the 
amount  of  poverty  by  diminishing  the  number  suffering  from 
trade  diseases. 

The  Real  Causes  of  Poverty 

When  we  said  that  our  metal  polisher  was  a  victint  of 
his  trade,  we  touched  on  the  core  of  the  poverty  question 


TRADE  UNIONS  131 

as  it  has  always  been  recognized  by  the  trade  union,  and  as 
it  is  now  coming  to  be  recognized  by  society  at  large. 

The  primary  and  dominant  causes  of  poverty  are  not 
shiftlessness,  laziness,  unreliability,  theft,  gambling,  vice, 
crime,  immorality,  heredity,  early  marriage,  large  family, 
physical  defects,  ignorance  of  English,  desertion  and  non- 
support,  illiteracy,  ill  health — that  whole  category  of  individ- 
ual or  social  defects  in  character  which  has  been  designed 
more  or  less  with  the  view  of  holding  the  individual  respon- 
sible for  poverty. 

All  these  can  exist  and  do  exist  where  there  is  no  poverty. 

The  primary  and  dominant  causes  of  poverty,  as  well  as 
of  most  of  the  so-called  "causes"  mentioned  in  the  preced- 
ing paragraph,  arc  unhealthful  and  dangerous  occupations, 
unemployment,  low  wages,  industrial  accidents,  trade  dis- 
eases, unsanitary  dwellings  and  workshops,  child  labor,  im- 
migration, congestion  of  population,  lack  of  industrial  train- 
ing, long  hours  of  work — all  the  expressions  of  fundamental 
economic  forces  over  which  the  individual  victim  usually 
has  no  control  and  for  the  effects  of  which  he  ought  not 
to  be  held  responsible. 

IVhcrez'cr  these  exist   to-day  there  is  poverty. 

It  is  comforting,  possibly  partly  because  it  enables  us  to 
remain  in  smug  contentment  with  conditions  as  they  are,  to 
I)e  told  that  the  individual  is  responsible  for  his  condition 
of  poverty;  but  it  is  far  from  being  the  truth.  Society 
must  recognize,  as  the  trade  union  has  already,  that  indus- 
trial and  economic  conditions,  far  more  than  personal  char- 
acteristics, make  poverty,  and  that  to  prevent  it  society 
must  control  or  remove  these  fundamental  causes. 

Instead  of  dissipating  social  energy  in  feeble  attempts 
to  cure  -poverty  zve  should  direct  our  cotnbined  strength 
toward  the  prei'cntion  of  pcverty,  for  if  poverty  is  prevent- 
ed it  will  not  have  to  be  cured.  In  fact,  it  is  very  much  to 
be  questioned  if  poverty  is  curable.  We  do  know,  however, 
that  much  if  not  most  of  it  can  be  prevented.  This  has  been 
indicated  in  our  discussion  of  unhealthful  occupations.  Let 
us  take  one  other  illustration  among  the  many  there  are 
to  select  from — industrial  accidents. 


132  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

The  Perils  of  the  Worker 

It  is  not  possible  to  measure  with  any  degree  of  accuracy 
the  amount  of  poverty  caused  by  industrial  accidents;  we 
cannot  even  measure  the  extent  of  the  accidents.  It  takes 
very  little  imagination  and  acquaintance  with  actual  condi- 
tions, however,  for  one  to 'see  that  on  our  railroads,  in  our 
coal  mines,  in  the  metal  trades,  in  mechanical  industries,  in 
the  manufacture  of  explosives,  sulphuric  and  nitric  acids, 
and  in  other  dangerous  industries  accidents  play  a  dominant 
part  among  the  causes  of  poverty,  accompanied  as  they 
usually  are  among  workmen  by  a  period  of  unemployment 
when  wages  stop  altogether  and  expenses  increase  for  medi- 
cine and  burial.  In  all  these  and  other  industries  employ- 
ment is  inseparable  from  the  worker  being  exposed  to  the 
possibilities  of  accidents. 

Frederick  L.  Hoffman,  a  well-known  writer  on  insurance 
subjects,  estimates  that  the  number  of  accidents  among  men 
employed  in  manufacturing  industries  alone  for  1906  was 
208,300,  of  which  5,000  were  fatal,  and  the  remainder  more 
or  less  serious.  The  estimate  is,  of  course,  wholly  inade- 
quate, as  it  is  not  only  confined  to  accidents  among  men 
workers  but  to  manufacturing  industries;  it  takes  no  account 
of  casualties  in  mines  and  quarries,  transportation  by  land 
and  sea,  and  all  general  employments.  Whether  the  total 
number  of  accidents  each  year  in  the  United  States  is  208,- 
300  or  more  than  500,000,  the  fact  remains  that  in  conse- 
quence a  tremendous  amount  of  poverty  comes  not  only  to 
the  injured  victims  but  to  their  families  also.  Mr.  Hoflfman 
says  that  fully  one-half  of  the  fatal  accidents  are  more  or 
less  the  immediate  result  of  dangerous  industries  or  trades. 

P'or  illustration,  in  the  anthracite  mines  of  Pennsylvania 
there  were  4,833  fatal  and  11,084  non-fatal  accidents  in  ten 
years.  In  the  same  period  in  the  bituminous  coal  mines  of 
that  State  alone  there  were  3,522  fatal  and  7,671  non-fatal 
injuries.  One  single  mine  explosion  in  West  Virginia  last 
year  left  124  widows  and  532  orphans  in  a  condition  of  social 
dependency. 


TRADE  UNIONS  133 

71ie  Railroads'  Toll  of  Death 

In  railroading  the  risk  to  the  health,  life  and  well-being 
of  the  worker  is  one  of  the  most  serious  met  with  in  indus- 
trial pursuits.  The  most  important  group  of  employees  is 
trainmen,  the  number  exceeding  300,000.  Among  this  num- 
ber there  were  2,301  deaths  in  1906  from  railroad  casual- 
ties; in  addition  there  were  nearly  35,000  injured,  or  at  the 
rate  of  nearly  123  for  every  1,000  employees.  In  the  ten 
years  to  1906  there  were  16,363  fatal  and  221,685  non-fatal 
accidents  among  railway  trainmen  alone  in  the  United 
States.  This  did  not  include  similar  accidents  to  switch- 
tenders,  crossing  tenders  and  watchmen,  railway  mail  clerks, 
flagmen,  and  freight  handlers. 

The  degree  of  accidental  injury  is  of  importance  in  its 
relation  to  poverty.  The  most  extensive  investigation  is 
the  one  made  by  the  New  York  State  Department  of  Labor 
covering  the  five  years  ending  in  1906.  Of  39,244  accidents 
in  factories  and  workshops,  31,722,  or  80.8  per  cent,  caused 
temporary  disablement  to  the  worker,  and  6,580,  or  16.8  per 
cent,  permanent  disablement.  The  fatal  accidents  for  the 
same  period  amounted  to  864. 

How  some  accidents  happen  is  indicated  in  the  report  of 
the  Factory  Inspector  of  Pennsylvania.  Referring  to  the 
iron  and  steel  works,  he  says: 

The  reckless  manipulation  of  cranes  and  hoists;  the  hasty  and 
faulty  hooking  up  of  heavy  weights;  the  slipping  of  furnaces;  the 
overturning  of  ladles  filled  with  molten  metal;  the  speeding  of  en- 
gines and  cars  without  light,  bell  or  flagman  through  the  yards 
of  large  establishments  thronged  with  busy  workers;  the  order- 
ing of  employees  to  work  upon  rotten  scaffoldings;  the  employ- 
ment of  foreigners  ignorant  of  our  language  and  habits  in  danger- 
ous occupations  without  words  of  caution  and  without  proper  over- 
sight, are  crimes  against  humanity  that  call  for  drastic  legisla- 
tion. 

An  analysis  of  accidents  in  New  York  State  covering  the 
years  1901-1906,  shows  more  than  50  per  cent,  are  the  im- 
mediate result  of  machinery  in  motion.  Some  of  the  causes 
are  gearing,  belts  shifting,  pulleys,  elevators,  hoists,  cranes, 
hot  liquids,  acids,  steam,  explosives,  collapse  of  buildings, 
falling  objects,  fall  of  persons,  vehicles  and  animals. 

We  do  not  need  to  point  out  that  industrial  accidents 
usually    mean    to    the    injured    worker    unemployment,    in- 


134  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

creased  expenses  along  with  decreased  earnings,  tlie  ex- 
haustion of  savings — altogether  a  sharp  push  toward  if  not 
over  the  poverty  line. 

That  many  of  these  accidents  could  be  prevented  is  not 
mere  theory.  It  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  experience 
of  European  countries.  Mr.  Hoffman  says  that  if  the  rate 
of  casualties  of  railway  employees  in  this  country  were 
reduced  from  2.50  per  thousand,  the  annual  average  rate  for 
1897-1906,  to  0.98  per  thousand,  the  average  for  the  German 
Empire  for  the  same  period,  the  saving  each  year  would  be 
1.735  valuable  human  lives. 

If  the  accident  liability  of  employees  in  coal  mines  in 
the  United  States  were  reduced  from  3.10  per  thousand,  the 
annual  average  rate  for  the  period  1897-1906,  to  1.29  per 
thousand,  the  average  rate  in  the  United  Kingdom  for  the 
same  years,  the  saving  in  human  life  in  our  coal  mines  each 
year  would  be  915. 

Furthermore,  it  should  not  be  impossible,  says  Mr.  Hoff- 
man, to  save  at  least  one-third  and  perhaps  one-half  of  the 
35,000  male  wage-earners  killed  annually  in  American  in- 
dustries, and  this  could  be  done  merely  by  the  exercise  of 
intelligent  and  rational  methods  of  factory  inspection,  legis- 
lation and  control.  By  the  same  means  how  great  a  pro- 
portion of  the  vast  number  of  non-fatal  accidents  could  be 
prevented? — accidents  that  not  only  involve  an  inestimable 
amount  of  human  suffering  and  sorrow  and  poverty  but  ma- 
terially curtail  the  normal  longevity  and  the  efficiency  of 
those  exposed  to  the  often  needless  risk  of  industry. 

One  reason  why  industrial  accidents  now  result  in  a 
large  amount  of  poverty  is  because  almost  the  entire  bur- 
den of  their  cost  at  present  falls  on  the  injured  worker — 
the  one  least  able  to  bear  it — and  is  sooner  or  later  trans- 
ferred by  him  in  his  helplessness  to  charitable  and  philan- 
thropic institutions.  Here  are  some  typical  illustrations  of 
where  the  burden  falls: 

A  man.  assisting  other  workmen  in  the  construction  of  a 
house,  while  wheeling  a  wheel-barrow  stepped  aside  to  let 
a  fellow-workman  pass.  He  was  jostled,  which  caused  him 
to  lose  his  balance.  He  fell  and  was  made  a  permanent 
cripple.     He  received  no  compensation  from  anyone. 


TRADE  UNIONS  135 

A  workman  on  a  city  sewer  was  injured  by  an  explosion. 
While  in  this  case  a  small  indemnity  was  allowed,  at  the 
same  time  the  authorities  explicitly  stated  that  the  city  was 
under  no  obligations  to  pay  anything,  although  the  disability 
caused  by  the  accident  was  permanent. 

While  performing  his  labors  at  a  freight  depot,  a  work- 
man met  with  an  accident  which  cut  off  his  earnings  for 
several  weeks,  he  becoming  a  dependent  on  charity.  He 
received  no  compensation. 

In  another  case  a  workman  was  caught  in  a  rope  and 
crushed  before  the  machinery  could  be  stopped.  This  acci- 
dent, for  which  no  compensation  was  made  to  the  worker, 
vvas  due  to  the  absence  of  proper  safeguards  to  the  machine. 

At  present,  when  an  industrial  accident  is  due  to  even 
the  momentary  negligence  of  the  victim  or  a  fellow  em- 
ployee, the  injured  worker  is  held  responsible;  and  even  in 
the  cases  where  he  is  not,  he  or  his  family  can  recover 
damages  only  by  instituting  legal  proceedings,  the  expense 
of  which  is  usually  beyond  his  means.  As  President  Roose- 
velt said  in  his  Message  to  Congress  in  December,  1907: 
"It  works  grim  hardship  ta  the  ordinary  wage-worker  and 
his  family  to  have  the  effect  of  such  an  accident  fall  solely 
upon  him."  Mr.  Roosevelt  further  said:  "The  law  should 
be  made  such  that  the  payment  for  accidents  by  the  em- 
ployer would  be  automatic  instead  of  being  a  matter  for  law- 
suits. Workmen  should  receive  certain  and  definite  com- 
pensation for  all  accidents  in  industry,  irrespective  of  negli- 
gence." 

The   Xczi'  Principle   of  Justice 

Around  the  fellow-servant  doctrine  of  the  law  of  negli- 
gence centers  to-day  the  problem  of  industrial  accidents,  and 
it  is  not  likely  that  any  progress  can  be  made  toward  im- 
proving conditions  until  «t  have  abandoned  our  l>lace  as  the 
most  backward  nation  in  our  failure  to  />rotect  the  injured  in- 
dustrial toiler  and  recognize  the  new  principle  of  justice  which 
Continental  countries,  even  Russia,  have  adopted,  some  of  them 
more   than  thirty  years   ago. 

This  advanced  position  which  the  modern  conception  of 
justice  decrees,  shifts  the  burden  of  proof  from  the  shoulders 


136  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

of  the  injured  employee  to  those  of  the  employer  or  cor- 
poration— it  distinctly  directs  that  the  employer,  and  not. 
the  employee,  shall  assume  the  ordinary  risks  of  the  indus- 
try. This  is  what  Germany,  for  instance,  has  done — it  has 
made  employers  responsible  for  all  accidents  to  employees 
in  the  course  of  their  occupation  except  such  as  are  oc- 
casioned by  the  willful  misconduct  of  the  victims  them- 
selves. This  is  an  extreme  departure  from  the  old  law  of 
negligence.  In  addition,  German  legislation  has  established 
in  all  industries  accident  funds  for  employees.  The  law  re- 
quires every  employer  to  join  a  mutual  insurance  company. 
This  company  indemnifies  employees  for  all  personal  in- 
juries sustained  in  the  course  of  their  employment,  the  ques- 
tion of  negligence  on  one  side  or  the  other  having  nothing 
to  do  with  the  amount  of  indemnification.  This  is  fixed  by 
the  amount  of  the  employee's  wages  and,  in  case  of  his 
death,  by  the  number  of  surviving  dependents.  For  nearly 
a  quarter  of  a  century  now  this  compulsory  accident  in- 
surance system  has  been  on  trial  in  Germany,  and  its  suc- 
cess is  not  seriously  disputed. 

In  consequence,  about  20,oop,ooo  persons  engaged  in  in- 
dustrial pursuits  in  Germany  are  protected  by  the  insurance 
system,  and  any  one  of  these,  in  case  of  a  disabling  acci- 
dent, may  claim  a  living  allowance  as  a  right  and  not  as 
a  charity.  Thus  they  are  not  compelled  to  sink  into  poverty 
and  pauperism,  as  is  largely  the  case  in  this  countrj'.  About 
$20,000,000  are  annually  expended  through  this  system,  in- 
demnifying each  year  about  100,000  accidental  injuries. 
Permanently  injured  employees  are  pensioned.  Not  the  least 
important  of  the  ensuing  benefits,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
preventing  poverty,  is  that  from  80  to  85  per  cent,  is  actual- 
ly paid  to  the  sufferers.  It  has  been  estimated  that  in  New 
York  about  60  per  cent,  of  the  damages  secured  by  injured 
employees  goes  to  lawyers.  Another  and  great  advantage 
of  the  German  system  is  that  the  employers  spend  a  larger 
amount  in  preventing  accidents. 

The  Unions  Bear  the  Brunt 

In  the  United  States  the  brunt  of  the  struggle  for  the 
prevention    of    industrial    accidents    has    been    and    is    being 


TRADE  UNIONS  137 

borne  by  tlic  labor  union.  What  it  has  accomplished  in  this 
direction  cannot  be  measured  in  figures  even  if  statistics 
were  obtainable.  It  has  done  this  in  ways  similar  to  those 
adopted  for  the  prevention  of  unhealthful  condition^  in  the 
working  places  of  its  members,  and  there  is  not  a  labor 
union  of  importance  whose  members  are  engaged  in  a  dan- 
gerous occupation  that  does  not  have  among  its  principal 
objects  the  prevention  of  accidents  by  demanding  and  com- 
pelling the  use  or  installation  of  proper  safeguards.  Three 
of  the  eleven  '"objects"  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America,  for  instance,  are  directed  to  tfiis  enJ. 

Third. — To  secure  the  introduction  of  any  and  all  well-defined 
and  established  appliances  for  the  preservation  of  life,  health,  and 
limbs  of  all  mine  employees. 

Fourth. — To  reduce  to  the  lowest  possible  minimum  the  awful 
catastrophes  which  have  been  sweeping  our  fellow- craftsmen  to 
untimely  graves  by  the  thousands;  by  securing  legislation  looking 
to  the  most  perfect  system  of  ventilation,   drainage,   etc. 

Fifth. — To  enforce  existing  laws;  and  where  none  exist,  enact 
and  enforce  them;  calling  for  a  plentiful  supply  of  suitable  timber 
for  supporting  the  roof,  pillars,  etc.,  and  to  have  all  working  places 
rendered  as  free  from  water  and  impure  air  and  poisonous  gases  as 
possible. 

The  Army  of  the  Unemployed 

Not  only  are  industrial  accidents  and  trade  diseases  in 
themselves  causes  of  poverty;  they  are  also  among  the 
causes  contributing  to  swell  the  "Army  of  the  Unemployed." 
Unemployment  itself  is  a  dominant  factor  among  the  causes 
of  poverty. 

At  a  meeting  of  Congregational  ministers  in  New  York 
City  last  winter  to  discuss  unemployment,  one  of  them 
stated  that  it  was  his  belief  that  98  per  cent,  of  the  200,000 
and  more  workers  then  out  of  employment  in  New  York 
City  alone  because  of  the  industrial  depression  were  un- 
deserving and  would  not  work  if  the  opportunity  were  of- 
fered. This  was  his  opinion,  and  it  is  the  belief  of  many 
others,  but  it  is  an  opinion  not  based  upon  a  knowledge  of 
the  facts. 

The  Bitter  fruits  of  Idleness 

At  that  time  horiest,  capable,  home-loving,  temperate 
men  were  tramping  the  streets  of  the  city  day  and  night 
looking  and  praying  for  work,   and  because  they  could  not 


138  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

get  it  were  committing  suicide,  becoming  charitj'  depen- 
dents, being  sentenced  to  idleness  in  the  workhouse,  were 
deserting  wives  and  children,  and  were  being  forced  into 
the  commission  of  crime.  To  them  no  work  meant  no  pay, 
and  no  pay  meant  no  food,  no  clothing,  no  shelter.  No 
work  meant  idleness,  the  cutting  oft  of  wages,  the  exhaus- 
tion of  savings  and  credit,  the  abandoning  of  aged  parents 
i.nd  the  breaking  up  of  homes,  the  physical  and  moral 
deterioration  of  the  workers,  a  decrease  not  only  in  labor 
efficiency  but  in  the  labor  supply  also,  an  increase  of  dis- 
tress, of  prostitution,  vagrancy,  pauperism,  poverty,  and  of 
dependency  in  various  other  forms.  In  brief,  idleness  when 
long  continued  anion;/  a  laboring  l^opulation,  means  insane 
asylums,  hospitals.  Zi'orkhouses.  jails,  penitentiaries,  and  like 
institutions. 

Society  not  only  lost  the  temporary  value  of  the  labor  of 
the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  unemployed  during  the  recent 
industrial  depression,  but  it  will  now  also  Iiave  to  support 
in  almshouses  and  like  institutions  for  the  remainder  of 
their  lives  many  thousand  formerly  efficient  workers. 

The  1908  reports  of  all  charitable  institutions,  both  pub- 
lic and  private  in  New  York  State,  show  a  startling  increase 
in  the  number  of  inmates  and  in  the  cost  of  operation.  The 
increase  in  the  State's  expenditures  alone  for  charity  for 
that  one  year  exceeded  $2,500,000. 

In  Prison  for  fieiiuj  Poor 

The  number  of  admissions  to  the  prisons  of  New  York 
State  in  1908  was  118,647,  an  increase  of  21.000  in  one  year — 
an  almost  unprecedented  record.  The  report  of  the  State 
Prison  Commis.sion  states  that  the  present  method  of  send- 
ing unemployed  men  and  women  to  jail  in  many  cases 
amounts  to  imprisoning  them  for  being  poor: 

Many  of  the  men  so  committed  were  simply  out  of  work  and 
out  of 'money;  they  were  not  criminals,  and  needed  pity  and  relief 
and  not  punishment.  No  public  policy  requires  that  such  men  be 
■ent  to  prison.  The  distinction  between  misfortune,  or  even  Im- 
providence, and  crime  should  be  carefully  observed.  The  enforce- 
ment of  the  present  law  often  results  in  oppression  to  poor  people, 
many  of  whom  are  ignorant  of  their  rights  and  all  of  them  too 
poor  to  defend  themselves. 

Eigurcs   in    the  report   of   the   New   York   State   Charities 


TRADE  UNIONS  139 

Aid  Association  for  the  past  year  show  that  the  largest  an- 
imal increase  of  the  insane  in  the  State's  history  occurred 
during  the  year  of  widespread  unemployment  following  the 
industrial  depression  in  1907.  This  increase  was  1,414,  com- 
pared with  741  the  previous  year,  the  total  number  of  cases 
in  public  and  private  institutions  being  30,507. 

"Down  and  Out''  for  Good 

This  downward  tendency  toward  poverty  and  pauperism 
of  the  unemployed  has  been  observed  by  every  student  of 
the  problem,  and  it  has  come  to  be  an  accepted  truism  that 
"the  curve  of  pauperism  {showing  its  increase)  follows  al- 
most exactly  at  an  interval  of  one  year  the  curve  of  unem- 
ployment." And  from  this  state,  unfortunately  for  society, 
very  few,  if  any  of  them,  ever  emerge  again  into  the  ranks 
of  regularly  employed,  independent  labor. 

In  protecting  society  from  the  full  consequences  of  un- 
employment as  well  as  in  reducing  its  extent,  we  again  find 
the  trade  union  performing  a  most  valuable  social  service. 
In  spite  of  the  fact  that  one  out  of  every  three  members  of 
labor  unions  was  out  of  work  for  months  following  the 
financial  panic  in  October,  1907,  very  few,  if  any,  trade  un- 
ionists resorted  to  charity  for  assistance.  Organized  labor 
look  care  of  its  bwn  unemployed,  spending  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  dollars  for  this  purpoe.  This  ability  of  the 
organized  American  workingman  to  stand  on  his  own  feet 
for  so  long  a  period  of  idleness  is  a  most  remarkable  illus- 
tration of  the  resources  and  reserve  powers  his  trade  union 
has  surrounded  him  with  for  just  such  sudden  emergencies. 

The   I'nions'  Ilclpinc/   Hands 

In  the  article  on  "The  Conquest  of  Poverty"  in  the  Oc- 
tober Metropolitan  Magazine,  in  an  enumeration  of  the  in- 
stitutions and  individuals  who  relieve  distress,  there  was  no 
mention  of  the  large  budgets  expended  each  year  for  this 
purpose  by  trade  unions.  Many  of  the  unions  have  unem- 
ployed, insurance,  old  age,  death,  sick  and  traveling  bene- 
fits. In  addition,  trade  unionists  not  infrequently  tide  over 
fellow  members  by  advances  or  loans  when  they  meet  with 


140  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

misfortune.  It  is  also  not  unusual  to  find  in  the  reports  of 
treasurers  of  the  unions  such  an  item  as  "Donation  to  other 
unions."  But  in  considering  this  relief  aspect  it  should  not 
be  forgotten  that  this  feature,  important  as  it  is,  is  only  a 
minor  or  incidental  phase  of  the  work  of  the  trade  union. 

During  1908,  sixty-four  labor  organizations,  affiliated  with 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  paid  out  in  benefits  to 
members  nearly  $2,145,000.  This  does  not  take  into  account 
the  sum  of  nearly  $2,550,000  expended  by  Federation  unions 
the  same  year  to  sustain  members  on  strike.  In  addition, 
the  five  brotherhoods  of  steam  railroad  employees  not  af- 
filiated with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor — conductors, 
engineers,  firemen,  switchmen,  and  trainmen — pay  out  each 
year  in  benefits  a  sum  exceeding  $5,000,000. 

The  accompanying  table  is  merely  suggestive,  and  is  not 

intended  as  a  complete   record  of   the  relief  work  of  labor 

organizations: 

FEDERATION  UNIONS 

Death    benefits     $1,257,244.29 

Sick    benefits    593,541.84 

Unemployed    benefits   206,254.81 

Traveling   benefits 51,093.86 

Death  benefits    (members'   wives)    31,390.00 

Tool    insurance    5,871.63 

$2,144,395.43 
Strike    benefits    2,550,000.00 

Total $4,694,395.43 

Railway   Brotherhoods    $5,000:000.00 

Grand   total    $9,694,395.43 

The  Union  As  a  Labor  Exchange 

In  reducing  the  extent  of  unemployment  the  trade  union 
at  all  times,  day  in  and  day  out.  is  performing  the  work  of 
what  is  practically  a  national  labor  exchange.  Its  members 
scattered  as  they  arc  everywhere  throughout  mines  and  mills 
and  factories  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  are  naturally  the 
first  to  learn  of  the  need  for  more  men,  and  through  their 
local  and  State  and  national  organizations  reaching  into 
every  industrial  center,  are  able  to  communicate  this  demand 
to  fellow  members  temporarily  out  of  employment.  They 
are    also   able    to   make    known    through    their    trade    union 


TRADE  UNIONS  141 

newspapers  where  there  is  already  an  over  supply  of  labor, 
thus  preventing  other  workmen  from  going  to  that  particu- 
lar industry  or  section.  Some  unions  advance  traveling  ex- 
penses to  members,  thus  making  labor  more  mobile  and 
preventing  congestion  at  certain  points,  while  there  may  be 
a  dearth  of  that  very  same  kind  of  labor  elsewhere. 

The  principal  policy  of  the  trade  union  toward  unemploy- 
ment, however,  is  that  implied  in  the  demand  for  an  eight- 
hour  work  day — a  demand  that  has  already  been  secured  by 
many  labor  unions  for  their  members.  The  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  believes  that: 

To-day,  in  the  midst  of  an  appalling  amount  of  enforced  idle- 
ness and  misery  among  the  organized  forces  of  labor  in  the  indus- 
trial centers  of  the  world,  the  first  rumblings  can  be  heard  of 
the  cry  "eight  hours  for  work;  eight  hours  for  rest;  eight  hours 
for  what  we  will."  To-day  we  repeat  what  we  have  claimed  for 
good  and  bad  times,  that  the  simplest  condition  by  which  the 
social  order  can  be  maintained  is  a  systematic  regulation  of  the 
work  day  to  insure  to  each  and  all  an  opportunity  to  labor.     . 

In  addition  to  an  eight-hour  work  day,  among  the  prin- 
cipal objects  of  all  labor  unions  is  opposition  to  low  wages, 
one  of  the  causes,  if  not  the  leading  cause,  of  poverty. 
Against  low  wages  every  single  trade  union  in  the  country 
is  fighting,  has  been  fighting  ever  since  their  organization — 
in  fact,  low  wages  was  the  fundamental  operating  cause 
which  has  given  to  us  the  labor  union.  It  came  into  exist- 
ence primarily  to  render  employment  and  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence less  precarious,  and  to  do  this  it  strives  to  secure 
to  the  worker  a  more  and  more  equitable  share  of  the  fruits 
of  his  toil.  Wages  are  present  in  one  form  or  another  in 
every  strike,  in  every  controversy  over  the  trade  agreement. 
The  trade  union  is  the  one  potent  force  that  has  brought  to 
the  American  workingman  relatively  higher  wages  than 
those  of  workingmen  in  any  other  country.  The  miners' 
union,  by  directing  the  entire  strength  of  its  membership  in 
demands  for  higher  wages,  has  secured  in  seven  years  in- 
creases in  wages  ranging  from  10  to  as  high  as  66  2-3  per 
cent,  for  some  300,000  mine  employees  in  a  majority  of  the 
twenty-eight  coal-producing  States. 

Labor's  First  Principle :  A  Living  Wage 

One  of  the  policies  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
which    represents    nearly    2,000,000   trade-unionists,    is    that: 


142  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

"A  principle  in  the  economy  of  our  lives  must  be  established 
and  that  is  a  living  wage,  below  which  the  wage-workers 
should  not  permit  themselves  to  be  driven.  The  living 
v/age  must  be  the  first  consideration,  either  in  the  cost  or 
sale  of  an  article,  the  product  of  labor."  And  on  this  prin- 
ciple the  trade  union  struggles  ever  to  establish  in  every 
industry  a  minimum  wage.  In  England  this  has  led  to  a 
discussion  by  the  Government  of  creating  by  law  Minimum 
Wage  Boards. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  indicate  the  important  position 
the  labor  union  occupies  among  the  social  forces  at  work 
to  prevent  poverty;  to  show  all  that  the  trade  union  does 
in  this  respect  would  be  to  write  a  voluminous  history  of 
the  labor  movement.  All  that  we  can  do  here  is  merely  to 
indicate  and  suggest. 

\n  the  midst  of  our  economic  chaos  the  trade  union  to- 
day stands  as  a  mightj'  bulwark  of  strength,  battling  against 
all  those  economic  forces  which,  it  unopposed,  would  soon 
sink  the  worker  into  a  condition  of  industrial  servitude  bor- 
dering on  poverty — a  condition  as  injurious  to  society  as  to 
the  toiler  himself.  It  has  done,  is  doing,  and  will  continue 
to  do  more  toward  the  prevention  of  poverty  than  all  the 
charitable  and  philanthropic  organizations  in  Christendom. 
It  has  done  this  because  it  attacks  not  the  individual  or  social 
effects  but  the  economic  causes  of  poverty — it  aims  to  prevent 
the  effects  by  controlling  these  causes. 

The  trade  union  seeks  to  secure  for  the  working  classes 
higher  money  wages;  greater  safeguards  against  sickness, 
injury  and  death  in  unhealthful  and  hazardous  emi)loyments; 
insurance  and  relief  benefits;  less  hours  of  work;  better 
homes  (not  merely  better  houses);  lower  prices  for  the 
necessaries  of  life  (as  through  co-operative  establishments 
and  by  opposition  to  "company"  stores) ;  more  opportuni- 
ties for  their  children  in  the  school-house;  better  clothes 
and  food  for  their  wives  and  little  ones,  and  innumerable 
other  "rights"  which  our  industrial  toilers  do  not  now  enjoy 
and  which  will  ever  be  denied  them  if  they  themselves  do 
not  control,  through  their  trade  union,  the  forces  which  are 
always  at  work  to  bring  about  low  wages  and  adverse  con- 
ditions of  employment.     All  these  and  other  objects  of  the 


TRADE  UNIONS  143 

trade  union  have  to  do  with  the  workingman  more  as  a 
man,  as  a  father  and  husband,  and  as  a  citizen  than  as  a 
mere  producer  of  labor — have  to  do  with  him  as  a  social 
animal  rather  than  a  labor-producing  machine. 

The  Forces  to  be  Opposed 

To  secure  these  and  other  rights  to  the  workingman  the 
labor  union  must  direct  its  efforts  and  strength  against  all 
those  industrial  and  social  forces  which  prevent  and  oppose 
their  acquisition  and  retention.  It  must  .  antagonize  the 
cupidity  and  self-interest  of  particular  employers;  it  must 
break  down,  without  pity  and  without  mercy  to  individuals, 
those  barriers  of  class  prejudice  and  distinction  which  would 
reserve  the  pursuit  of  happiness  to  the  privileged  few;  it 
must  effectually  control  immigration  as  it  enters  our  great 
industries  because  of  its  tendency  to  lower  the  standard  of 
living  of  the  American  workingman;  it  must  crush  out  child 
labor  for  all  time,  and  guard  carefully  the  employment  of 
women;  it  must  regulate  apprenticeship,  and  through  innum- 
erable other  channels  the  labor  union  must  control  and 
direct  economic  and  social  forces  if  it  is  to  save  its  members 
from  industrial  servitude  second  only  to  actual  slavery  in 
degradation  to  the  individual  and  in  injury  to  society. 


Outlook.  84:  669-74.  November  17,  1906. 

Trade   Union  and  Democracy.     John   Graham   Brooks. 

If  in  any  far  future  democracy  becomes  a  fact — a  democ- 
racy with  all  the  man-made  inequalities  removed,  all  the 
present  mockeries  gone  out  of  it — the  long  struggle  of  the 
trade  union  will  be  written  down  among  the  herois'ms  of 
history.  Its  occasional  savagery,  its  hectoring  abuses,  will 
fade  into  a  perspective  wherein  they  will  appear  as  inciden- 
tal, even  perhaps  as  necessary,  as  strange  abuses  have  been 
in  every  wholesome  revolution  that  has  marked  the  progress 
of  the  race.  The  trade  agreement  will  then  appear  clearly 
as  the  training  ground  for  larger  and  completer  partnership, 
of  co-operation  or  fraternalism  in  the  creation  and  dis- 
tribution of  commodities. 


144  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

We  now  see  that  this  binding  agreement  between  em- 
ployer and  employed  is  the  aim  of  trade-unionism.  We  see 
as  clearly  that  the  goal  is  never  reached  except  through  a 
definite  extension  of  the  democratic  principle.  The  joint 
agreement  assumes  that  business  has  come  to  be  so  social- 
ized that  all  those  who  carrj'  it  on  should  have  their  say  in 
the  councils  of  administration.  Anything  like  a  complete 
democratizing  of  industry  is  of  course  very  far  in  the  future, 
but  the  organized  struggle  to  that  end  has  begun.  The 
turbulent  energies  that  enter  into  it  make  the  labor  question. 

The  restlessness  of  labor,  its  almost  pitiless  importunity 
and  aggression,  its  victory  to-day  at  once  turned  into  a  rea- 
son for  further  claims  to-morrow,  are  a  kind  of  insanity 
until  they  are  seen  to  be  the  varying  signs  of  this  world 
movement  toward  the  extirpation  of  arbitrary  and  privileged 
power  in  industry.  It  is  a  mischievous  delusion  to  suppose 
that  this  industrial  pressure  will  for  a  moment  cease.  At  a 
dozen  points  labor  has  won  its  fight  before  a  sustaining 
public  opinion.  In  a  given  industry  we  may  now  mark  its 
progress  by  specific  issues.  Is  the  union  justified  in  es- 
tablishing a  minimum  wage?  This  was  met  by  a  generation 
of  abuse,  but  as  competition  drove  employers  to  apply  the 
same  principle  to  prices,  the  absurdity  of  the  unions  began 
to  disappear.  It  was  seen  in  both  camps  that  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  weaker  required  this  minimum.  If  it  puts  some 
check  upon  the  pace  of  the  strong,  there  is  compensation  to 
the  group  as  a  whole.  "Each  for  all  and  all  for  each" — the 
most  democratic  of  shibboleths — gets  an  added  content  of 
meaning.  Where  the  trade  agreement  exists,  the  opposi- 
tion to  this  minimum  could  not  stand  against  the  discussion 
of  one  afternoon  session. 

But' better  than  all  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  this  trade 
union  pressure  is  the  claim  for  an  eight-hour  day.  The  im- 
mediate competitive  exigencies  in  a  world  market  present 
obstinate  practical  difficulties.  We  get  to  know  to  a  cer- 
tainty that  these  difficulties  must  sooner  or  later  yield.  The 
labor  pressure  at  this  point  will  strengthen  because  the 
leisure,  the  health,  the  freedom  which  shorter  hours  imply 
represent  values  upon  which  the  workers  more  and  more 
set  heart. 


TRADE  UNIONS  145 

Thus,  whether  the  struggle  is  over  the  wage  scale,  the 
number  of  apprentices,  piece-work,  fewer  hours,  closed 
shops,  or  "recognition,"  it  is  an  attack  on  forms  of  personal 
power  under  the  wage  system.  Slowly  before  our  eyes  that 
system  is  undergoing  changes  in  the  direction  of  co-opera- 
tion or  democratic  control.  If  for  no  other  reason  than 
this,  that  labor  more  and  more  believes  it  is  not  getting  its 
share,  the  pressure  will  continue.  The  sheer  mass  of  doubt 
and  suspicion  on  the  part  of  labor  has  grown  into  a  fact  so 
troublesome  that  it  must  be  removed  by  substituting  demo- 
cratic methods.  These  may  for  a  time  work  ill  and  prove 
costly,  but  they  must  be  tried  if  only  to  remove  the  deepen- 
ing incredulity  about  the  fairness  of  the  present  wage  sys- 
tem. 

In  the  United  States,  trade  union  pressure  toward  co- 
operation has  hitherto  been  confined  almost  wholly  to  the 
economic  field.  With  sustained  desperation,  the  ablest  of 
our  unions  have  struggled  to  keep  out  of  politics  precisely 
as  they  have  in  other  countries,  until  convinced  that  their 
opponents  in  that  field  were  too  strong  for  them.  When 
those  proofs  have  come,  the  unions  Have  turned  to  party 
politics.  This  opens  another  stage  in  the  democratizing  of 
industry. 

Outlook.  97:  497-502.  March  4,  1911. 
Reason  for  the  Unions.     Washington  Gladden. 

In  a  preceding  article  I  have  dealt  with  the  abuses  of 
unionism.  The  exigencies  of  the  argument  seemed  to  call 
for  this  order  of  treatment,  because  most  of  those  whom  I 
wish  to  convince  are  aware  of  nothing  but  the  abuses  of 
unionism.  If  they  can  be  made  to  see  that  these  abuses  are 
not  essential  to  the  institution,  they  may  be  willing  to  give 
heed  to  the  reasons  for  its  existence. 

It  may  be  supposed  that  the  presentation  of  these  rea- 
sons is  a  superfluous  work.  Nearly  every  employer  whom 
you  meet  will  tell  you  promptly,  "I  believe  in  trade  unions." 
There  is  a  goodly  number  of  those  whose  works  show  that 
they  do  believe  in  them,  and  who  are  seeking  to  enter  into 


146  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

cordial  co-operation  with  them.  ^lost  employers,  however, 
are  apt  to  qualify  their  confession  of  faith  by  some  such 
phrase  as  this,  "When  properly  organized  and  managed." 
There  seems  to  be  something  wanting  m  such  a  confession. 
Would  a  man  say,  "I  believe  in  the  family,  when  properly 
constituted  and  conducted,"  or  "1  believe  in  democracy, 
when  properly  organized  and  managed"?  This  seems  to 
imply  a  reservation  of  our  faith  in  the  institution,  if,  in  any 
case,  fault  can  be  found  with  its  practical  administration. 
Would  it  not  be  better  to  say  concerning  the  family  or 
concerning  democracy,  "I  believe  in  it,  and  I  hold  myself 
bound  to  do  my  utmost  to  see  that  it  is  held  in  honor  and 
that  it  is  properly  constituted  and  administered"?  If  such 
were  the  attitude  of  all  employers  toward  trade-unionism, 
we  should  soon  see  a  vast  improvement  in  the  industrial 
situation.  And  I  am  quite  sure  that  there  are  many  em- 
ployers who  are  now  frankly  antagonistic  to  the  unions  who 
would  take  this  more  friendly  attitude  toward  them  if  they 
could  clearly  see  what  are  the  real  purposes  of  the  unions 
.ind  what  disasters  are  involved  in  the  proposition  to  kill  or 
cripple  them. 

Most  of  those  who  say  that  they  believe  in  unions,  "if 
properly  conducted,"  mean  to  confine  their  approval  to  such 
unions  as  are  purely  social  or  beneficial.  Trade  unions  gen- 
erally embody  some  such  features,  but  they  are  not  the  cen- 
tral reasons  for  their  existence.  The  federal  statute  provid- 
ing for  the  incorporation  of  trade  unions  mentions  these 
objects,  but  also  specifies,  as  purposes  of  such  organiza- 
tions, "the  regulation  of  their  wages  and  their  hours  and 
conditions  of  labor,  the  protection  of  their  individual  rights 
in  the  prosecution  of  their  trade  or  trades."  The  trade  un- 
ion has  always  had  insurance  features  and  social  and  educa- 
tional features,  and  these  are  the  features  which  the  average 
employer  is  ready  to  indorse;  but  the  main  purpose  for 
which  they  are  organized  is  thus  succinctly  expressed  by 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Webb:  "To  provide  a  continuous  association 
of  wage-earners,  for  the  purpose  of  inaiiitaiitiiif/  or  improv- 
ing the  conditions  of  their  employment."  This  purpose  the 
average  employer  does  not  approve  of;  when  the  union  be- 
gins  to   exert   its   power   in   regulating   wages   or    hours   or 


TRADE  UNIONS  147 

conditions  of  labor,  he  thinks  that  it  is  getting  out  of  its 
sphere  and  becoming  a  menace  to  the  social  well-being. 

Here,  now,  is  the  crux  of  the  situation.  This  is  the  main 
function  of  the  trade  union — to  organize  and  express  the 
will  of  its  members  in  bargaining  about  terms  and  condi- 
tions of  labor.  For  one  who  disputes  this  right  to  say  that 
he  believes  in  trade  unions  is  much  like  saying  that  he  be- 
lieves in  watches  provided  they  have  no  mainsprings,  or  in 
rivers  so  long  as  there  is  no  water  in  them.  No  one  can 
intelligently  say  that  he  approves  of  trade  unions  unless  he 
approves  of  giving  to  the  men  who  are  organized  in  them 
the  right  of  dealing,  through  their  representatives,  on  equal 
terms  with  their  employers,  concerning  the  wages  they  shall 
receive,  the  hours  they  shall  labor,  and,  the  conditions  under 
which  their  work  shall  be  done. 

There  are  employers  wlfo  appear  to  say  that  they  are 
willing  to  permit  trade  unions  to  negotiate  about  these 
matters,  provided  the  unions  will  pledge  themselves  befpre- 
hand  not  to  enforce  their  demands  by  striking.  It  does  not 
appear,  however,  that  these  employers  propose  to  divest 
themselves  of  the  power  to  reduce  wages,  against  the  will 
of  the  men,  or  to  dismiss  whom  they  will  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  union.  They  expect  to  keep  for  themselves  all 
the  power  they  now  possess;  all  they  ask  is  that  before 
entering  upon  the  struggle  for  the  division  of  the  joint  prod- 
uct of  capital  and  labor  the  representatives  of  labor  shall  tie 
their  own  hands  behind  their  backs.  The  proposition  does 
not  appear  to  be  a  very  chivalrous  one;  probably  while  hu- 
man nature  remains  as  it  is,  and  the  competitive  regime 
continues  to  prevail,  it  will  not  be  widely  accepted. 

What,  then,  shall  we  say  about  this  demand  of  the  un- 
ions— that  they  shall  have  the  right,  coUecLively,  through 
their  chosen  representatives,  to  bargain  with  their  employers 
about  wages  and  conditions  of  labor?  Is  it  a  reasonable  de- 
mand? I  think  that  it  is  eminently  reasonable  and  just; 
that  no  fair-minded  employer  ought  for  one  moment  to 
question  it. 

Let  us  remind  ourselves  that  we  are  not  dealing  now 
with  the  old  domestic  system  of  industry,  in  which  there 
were   nearly  as   many  men  as   masters,  and  the  cases  were 


148  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

rare  in  which  the  capitalist  employer  did  not  personally 
know  all  the  people  in  his  employ.  Most  of  our  industrial 
maxims  are  drawn  out  of  that  regime,  and  have  no  applica- 
tion to  the  present  order.  Let  us  remember  that  we  are 
dealing  now  with  the  large  system  of  industry,  in  which  a 
single  responsible  employer  represents  hundreds  or  thou- 
sands of  stockholders,  and  deals  with  hundreds  or  thou- 
sands of  employees — a  relation  in  which  personal  friendships 
and  sympathies  between  employer  and  employee  have  come 
to  be  a  negligible  quantity.  Suppose,  now,  that  there  is  no 
organization  among  the  laborers,  or  none  that  has  any 
power  to  deal  with  questions  of  wages  or  hours  of  labor. 
The  competitive  regime  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that 
prices  will  be  fixed  by  "the  higglirg  of  the  market."  How 
much  "higgling  of  the  market"  is  likely  to  take  place  be- 
tween a  single  laborer  and  such  a  corporation?  Let  Sidney 
and  Beatrice  Webb  set  forth  the  details  of  the  process.  The 
case  supposed  is  that  of  a  labor  market  in  perfect  equilib- 
rium. 

"We  assume  that  there  is  only  a  single  situation  vacant, 
and  only  one  candidate  for  it.  When  the  workman  applies 
for  the  post  to  the  employer's  foreman,  the  two  parties 
differ  considerably  in  strategic  strength.  There  is  first  the 
difference  of  alternative.  If  the  foreman,  and  the  capitalist 
employer  for  whom  he  acts,  fail  to  come  to  terms  with  the 
workman,  they  may  be  put  to  some  inconvenience  in  ar- 
ranging the  work  of  the  establishment.  They  may  have  to 
persuade  the  other  workmen  to  work  harder  or  to  work 
overtime;  they  may  even  be  compelled  to  leave  a  machine 
vacant,  and  thus  run  the  risk  of  some  delay  in  the  comple- 
tion of  an  order.  Even  if  the  workman  remains  obdurate, 
the  worst  that  the  capitalist  suffers  is  a  fractional  decrease 
of  the  year's  profit.  Meanwhile  he  and  his  foreman,  with 
their  wives  and  families,  find  their  housekeeping  quite  un- 
affected; they  go  on  eating  and  drinking,  working  and  en- 
joying themselves,  whether  the  bargain  with  the  individual 
workman  has  been  made  or  not.  Very  different  is  the  case 
with  the  wage-earner.  If  he  refuses  the  foreman's  terms 
even  for  a  day,  he  irrevocably  loses  his  whole  day's  subsis- 
tence.    If    he    has    absolutely    no    other    resources    than    his 


TRADE  UNIONS  149 

labor,  hunger  brings  him  to  his  knees  the  very  next  morn- 
ing. Even  if  he  has  a  little  hoard,  or  a  couple  of  rooms  full 
of  furniture,  he  and  his  family  can  only  exist  by  the  im- 
mediate sacrilice  of  their  cherished  provision  against  calam- 
ity, or  the  stripping  of  their  home.  Sooner  or  later  he  itiust 
come  to  terms,  on  pain  of  starvation  or  the  workhouse."  It 
is  now  universally  agreed,  Professor  Marshall  tells  us,  "that 
manual  laborers  as  a  class  are  at  a  disadvantage  in  bargain- 
ing." The  fact  is  so  palpable  that  it  is  needless  to  quote 
authorities.  A  single  laborer  has  no  fighting  chance  in  deal- 
ing with  a  great  corporation;  he  can  only  accept  what  is 
offered  him.  The  consequence  is  his  inevitable  degradation. 
Professor  Marshall  points  out  that  "the  effects  of  the  la- 
borer's disadvantage  in  bargaining  are  cumulative  in  two 
ways.  It  lowers  his  wages,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  this  low- 
.  ers  his  efficiency  as  a  worker,  and  thereby  lowers  the  nor- 
mal value  of  his  labor;  and,  in  afldition,  it  lowers  his  ef- 
ficiency as  a  bargainer,  and  thus  increases  the  chance  that 
he  will  sell  his  labor  for  less  than  its  normal  value." 

Under  the  present  system  of  large  industry,  with  compe- 
tition as  the  regulative  principle,  unorganized  labor  is  always 
driven  on  the  downward  road.  This  results  not  only  from 
the  inequality  between  the  single  laborer  and  the  great  cor- 
poration, but  also  from  the  competition  between  employers. 
For  the  employer  of  humane  and  liberal  sentiment,  who 
wishes  to  pay  his  working  people  the  highest  wages  pos- 
sible, finds  himself  unable  to  compete  with  the  unscrupulous 
employer,  who,  by  forcing  wages  down,  is  able  to  produce 
goods  cheaper  than  the  former  can,  and  thus  to  undersell 
him  in  the  market  and  get  his  business  away  from  him.  Mr. 
John  Graham  Brooks  quotes  a  retired  shoe  manufacturer  of 
wealth  who  said  of  the  trade  unions:  "They  make  a  good 
many  stupid  mistakes,  but  an  organisation  strong  enough  to 
fight  the  employer  is  a  necessity  to  labor.  Competition  so 
forces  many  of  the  best  employers  to  copy  the  sharp  tricks 
of  the  worst  employers  in  lowering  wages,  that  the  trade 
union  must  be  equipped  to  fight  against  these  reductions  or 
for  a  rise  in  wages  when  business  is  more  prosperous." 

The  fact  that  unorganized  labor  is  steadily  forced  down- 
ward toward  starvation  and  misery  is  a  fact  which  no  stu- 


ISO  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

dent  of  industrial  conditions  would  dream  of  denying.  The 
history  of  the  industrial  revolution  by  which  the  factory  sys- 
tem supplanted  the  domestic  system  of  production  is  full  of 
examples  of  this  process.  Men  who  angrily  declare  that 
there  shall  be  no  organization  of  labor  ought  to  read  care- 
fully the  industrial  history  of  the  second  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  when  the  conditions  which  thej'  consider 
ideal  were  prevailing  in  the  great  industrial  centers.  There 
were  no  unions  in  England  during  the  earlier  part  of  this 
period;  laws  of  the  most  drastic  character,  which  made  it  a 
criminal  conspiracy  for  two  or  three  workingmen  to  con- 
sult together  for  the  purpose  of  securing  shorter  hours  or 
better  wages,  had  effectually  stamped  out  unionism. 

For  the  employers  it  was  a  most  prosperous  period; 
wealth  was  increasing  by  leaps  and  bounds,  great  fortunes 
were  being  lieaped  up;  but  the  chasm  between  the  employer 
and  the  employed  was  steadily  widening,  and  the  condition 
of  the  working  people  was  becoming  more  and  more  de- 
plorable. "In  the  new  cities,"  says  Arnold  Toynbee,  "the 
old  warm  attachments,  born  of  local  contiguity  and  inter- 
course, vanished  in  the  fierce  contest  for  wealth  among 
thousands  who  had  never  seen  each  other's  faces  before. 
Between  the  individual  workman  and  the  capitalist  who  em- 
ployed hundreds  of  'hands'  a  wide  gulf  opened;  the 
workman  ceased  to  be  the  cherished  dependent;  he  became 
the  living  tool  of  whom  the  employer  knew  less  than  he  did 
'of  his  steam-engine." 

Government  reports  of  this  period  show  that  children  of 
five  and  six  years  of  age  were  frequently  employed  in  fac- 
tories. Men  and  women  stood  at  their  daily  tasks  from 
twelve  to  fourteen  and  fifteen  hours;  a  working  day  of 
sixteen  hours  was  not  an  unheard-of  thing.  Even  at  that 
early  day  the  demand  was  loud  for  machines  that  could  be 
tended  by  women  and  children;  and  their  husbands  and 
fathers  were  driven  out  of  the  shops  and  compelled  to  stand 
idle  in  the  market-place.  "Nor  was  this  unmeasured  abuse 
of  child  labor,"  says  Mr.  Hyndman,  "confined  to  the  cotton, 
silk,  or  wood  industries.  It  spread  in  every  direction.  The 
profit  was  so  great  that  nothing  could  stop  its  development. 
The  report  of   1842  is  crammed  with   statements   as  to  the 


TRADE  UNIONS  151 

fearful  overwork  of  girls  and  boys  in  iron  and  coal  mines, 
which  doubtless  had  been  going  on  from  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  Children,  being  small  and  handy,  were 
particularly  convenient  for  small  veins  of  coal,  and  for  pits 
where  no  great  amount  of  capital  was  efnbarked;  they  could 
get  about  where  horses  and  mules  could  not.  Little  girls 
were  forced  to  carry  heavy  buckets  of  coal  up  high  lad- 
ders, and  little  girls  and  bpys,  instead  of  animals,  dragged 
the  coal-bunkers.  Women  were  constantly  employed  under- 
ground at  the  filthiest  tasks." 

Through  all  this  period  wages  gravitated  downward, 
and  while  the  cost  of  food  increased  the  family  income  was 
steadily  lowered.  The  Parliamentary  reports  give  us  picr 
tures  of  the  life  of  the  people  in  all  the  great  manufactur- 
ing centers  that  leave  nothing  for  the  imagination:  "In  the 
parishes  of  St.  John  and  St.  Margaret  there  lived  in  1840, 
according  to  the  'Journal  of  the  Statistical  Society,'  5,366 
workingmen's  families  in  5,249  'dwellings'  (if  they  deserve 
the  name!),  men,  women,  and  children  thrown  together 
without  distinction  of  age  or  sex,  26,830  persons  all  told; 
and  of  these  families  three-fourths  possessed  but  one  room. 
In  the  aristocratic  parish  of  St.  George,  Hanover  Square, 
there  lived  according  to  the  same  authority,  1,465  working- 
men's  families,  nearly  six  thousand  persons,  under  similar 
conditions,  and  here,  too,  more  than  two-thirds  of  the 
whole  number  crowded  together  at  the  rate  of  one  family  in 
one  room." 

"The  preacher  of  the  old  church  at  Edinburgh,  Dr.  Lee, 
testified  in  1836  before  the  Commission  of  Religious  Instruc- 
tion that  he  had  never  seen  such  misery  in  his  parish,  where 
the  people  were  without  furniture,  without  everything,  two 
married  couples  often  sharing  one  room.  In  a  single  day 
he  had  visited  seven  houses  in  which  there  was  not  a  bed; 
in  spme  of  them  not  even  a  heap  of  straw.  Old  people  of 
eighty  years  sleep  on  the  board  floor;  nearly  all  slept  in 
their  day  clothes.  In  one  cellar  room  he  found  two  families 
from  a  Scotch  country  district.  Soon  after  their  removal 
to  the  city  two  of  the  children  had  died,  and  a  third  was 
dying  at  the  time  of  his  visit.  Each  family  had  a  filthy  pile 
of  straw  lying  in  a  corner,  and  the  cellar  sheltered,  besides 


152  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  two  families,  a  donkey,  and  was,  moreover,  so  dark 
that  it  was  impossible  to  distinguish  one  person  from  anoth- 
er by  day.  Dr.  Lee  declared  that  it  was  enough  to  make  a 
heart  of  adamant  bleed  to  see  such  misery  in  a  country 
like  Scotland." 

And  these,  be  it  remembered,  were  not  days  of  indus- 
trial depression  in  Great  Britain;  they  were  flush  times, 
booming  times,  when  railways  were  building,  and  great 
mills  were  springing  up  on  every  hand,  and  hundreds  of 
capitalist  employers  were  building  up  great  fortunes. 

Such  is  the  irresistible  tendency  of  the  large  system  of 
industry  when  labor  is  unorganized.  It  is  helpless  to  resist 
the  forces  which  press  upon  it  from  every  side  and  doom  it 
to  degradation.  Our  own  country  has  witnessed  compara- 
tively little  of  this  tendency,  because  until  recentlj'  there 
has  been  abundance  of  cheap  land  to  which  the  workers 
could  betake  themselves,  and  the  physical  development  of  a 
new  country  has  absorbed  our  surplus  labor. .  But  even 
here  the  labor  of  women  in  the  cities  has  given  us  some 
hints  of  the  oppression  to  which  unorganized  labor  is  ex- 
posed; and  such  conditions  as  have  lately  been  uncovered 
in  Pittsburgh,  where  unionism  has  been  practically  exter- 
minated, enable  us  to  see  what  kind  of  fate  is  in  reserve 
for  any  working  class  which  fails  to  unite  for  its  own  pro- 
tection. 

What  other  possible  barrier  can  be  interposed  between 
the  working  class  and  these  forces  of  selfishness  that  al- 
ways tend  to  exploit  and  degrade  them?  Shall  the  power 
of  the  state  be  called  in  to  protect  them?  The  state  may 
usefully  interfere  in  behalf  of  children  and  women,  and  in 
the  interest  of  public  health,  and  for  the  safeguarding  of  the 
life  of  the  laborer,  and  in  some  other  ways;  but  so  long  as 
competition  is  the  regulative  principle  of  industry  the  state 
can  do  very  little  to  shield  the  laboring  man  from  the  pres- 
sure on  his  means  of  subsistence  of  the  superincumbent 
mass  of  consolidated  capital.  Nor  is  it  desirable  that  the 
state  should  take  any  class  of  its  citizens  under  its  special 
patronage. 

It  is  often  charged  that  the  state  has  extended  special 
privileges  to  capital,  by  which  it  has  been  able  to  exploit  the 


TRADE  UNIONS  153 

laboring  class;  and  also  that  it  has  failed  to  prevent  illegal 
and  oppressive  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  strong  by  which 
the  weak  have  been  plundered.  All  such  wrongs  the  state 
is  bound  to  rectify;  but  when  it  has  done  all  that  it  ought  to 
do  in  these  directions,  it  will  still  be  possible  for  great  com- 
binations of  organized  capital  to  take  advantage  of  un- 
organized labor  and  crowd  it  to  the  wall,  and  there  is  noth- 
ing that  the  state  can  do  to  prevent  it. 

It  may  be  suggested  that  the  sentiments  of  justice  and 
humanity  in  the  hearts  of  the  capitalists  themselves  will  pre- 
vent this  oppression.  Doubtless  there  are  among  them  men 
of  good  will  who  would  be  moved  by  such  considerations; 
but  unfortunately  these  are  not  the  people  who  set  the  pace 
in  these  competitive  struggles;  and  the  unorganized  labor- 
ers, instead  of  enjoying  the  protection  of  the  best  employers, 
soon  find  themselves  at  the  mercy  of  the  meanest. 

But  who  wants  to  put  them  under  anybody's  protection 
or  at  anybody's  mercy?  Who  wants  them  to  be  coddled 
by  the  state  or  cockered  by  their  employers?  Are  we 
going  to  put  the  millions  of  working  people  on  the 
list  of  beneficiaries,  and  teach  them  to  depend  for 
their  existence  on  the  bounty  of  their  employers? 
These  are  American  citizens;  they  ought  not  to  feel  that 
they  are  living  on  this  soil  by  anybody's  sufferance;  they 
pught  not  to  be  put,  by  our  industrial  system,  in  a  position 
of  vassalage,  and  they  must  not  be.  They  ought  to  be  men 
who  have  rights,  and  who  "know  their  rights,  and,  knowing, 
dare  maintain."  We  cannot  afford  to  have  any  other  kind 
of  citizens  in  this  country.  Some  way  must  be  found  "by 
which  these  men  shall  become  not  only  politically  but  in- 
dustrially free;  by  which  they  shall  have  something  them- 
selves to  say  respecting  the  terms  and  conditions  of  their 
employment,  by  which  they  shall  be  assured  that  their 
standing  in  the  community  is  not  a  matter  of  grace  but  of 
right. 

It  is  one  of  the  bitter  complaints  against  trade-unionists 
that  they  become  insolent  and  arrogant  in  the  use  of  their 
power.  How  much  of  that  is  a  reaction  from  the  abject 
servility  to  which  anti-unionism  tends  to  degrade  them?  I 
confess   that  nothing  more   disquieting   has   lately   come   to 


154  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

my  knowledge  than  that  state  of  mind  in  which  we  some- 
times tind  American  workingmen.  In  a  late  number  of  the 
"Technical  World"  Mr.  P.  Harvey  ]\Iiddleton  thus  describes 
bis  interview  with  a  workingman  in  the  Carnegie  works  at 
Homestead.  It  was  on  a  Sunday  morning,  and  the  man  was 
just  out  of  the  mill.  "He  was  asked  if  there  had  been  any 
reduction  of  Sunday  work  since  the  recent  order  about  Sun- 
day    labor    had     been     issued.      'Reduction     be    !'    he 

ejaculated.  "Why,  I  haven't  had  a  Sunday  oft  in  five  years.' 
Then  he  suddenly  became  very  serious,  and,  looking  fear- 
fully around  the  car  (the  steel  workers  have  learned  by 
bitter  experience  that  the  spies  of  the  corporation  are  every- 
where), bent  down — he  was  over  six  feet — and  whispered 
in  my  ear:  'This  morning  I  skipped  without  saying  a  word 
to  my  boss.  I  don't  know  what  will  happen,  and  I  have  a 
wife  and  five  kids  at  home.  But  I  think  I  might  have  at 
least  one  half  Sunday  in  five  years,  don't  you?'  This  last 
an  almost  pathetic  appeal.  Here  was  an  American  citizen 
who  had  been  working  twelve  hours  a  day,  seven  days 
(eighty-four  hours)^  a  week  for  five  consecutive  years.  He 
was  a  laborer,  and  the  Steel  Trust  paid  him  for  his  endless 
toil  sixteen  and  a  half  cents  an  hour.  He  wanted  to  spend 
the  Sunday  with  his  wife  and  children,  but  there  was  very 
little  doubt  in  my  mind  that  when  he  returned  to  work  on 
Monday  morning  he  would  be  promptly  discharged  for 
quitting  work  without  permission  on  the  day  of  rest." 

However  that  might  have  been,  the  shameful  fact  is 
that  an  American  man  should  be  afraid  to  complain  of  such 
conditions  lest  he  should  lose  his  livelihood.  So  also  during 
this  year  of  grace,  in  a  town  named  Bethlehem  (!),  three 
maehinists  who  dared  to  petition  the  manager  of  the  steel 
works  for  the  elimination  of  Sunday  work  were  promptly 
discharged.  As  a  consequence  of  this  drastic  policy,  gen- 
erally enforced  where  there  are  no  unions,  workingmen 
hardly  dare  to  express  a  wish  for  better  conditions.  Mr. 
Robert  A.  Woods,  a  most  sober  student  of  existing  condi- 
ions,  says  that  "the  Pittsburgh  employers'  point  of  view, 
more  than  that  of  any  other  city  in  the  country,  is  like  that 
of  England  in  the  early  days  of  the  factory  system — holding 
employees  guilty  of  a  sort  of  impiety,  and  acting  with  sud- 


TRADE  UNIONS  155 

den  and  sure  execution  if  they  undertake  to  enforce  their 
claims  in  such  way  as  to  embarrass  the  momentum  of 
great  business  administration."  This  is  the  point  of  view 
which  tends  to  prevail  where  unionism  is  excluded,  and  sub- 
mission to  it  must  produce  a  servile  spirit  in  the  laborer. 

The  street-car  men  in  our  Columbus  strike  have  told,  me 
of  the  fear  of,  consequences  which  oppressed  them  when, 
before  their  union  was  organized,  they  ventured  to  circulate 
a  humble  and  perfectly  respectful  petition  for  a  slight  in- 
crease of  pay.  That  they  had  reason  for  such  fear  was 
made  manifest  when  the  company's  inspectors  warned  them 
that  they  would  be  sorry  if  they  did  any  such  thing,  and 
when  those  who  were  instrumental  in  circulating  the  peti- 
tion were  first  reprimanded  by  the  manager,  and  then,  one 
by  one,  discharged. 

•  I  do  not  think  that  a  wise  statesmanship  will  consent  to 
see  the  masses  of  American  workingmen  put  in  a  position 
like  this.  Some  way  must  be  found  by  which  they  may  keep 
their  liberty  and  preserve  their  manhood. 

By  organizing  themselves  into  unions  they  obtain  and 
preserve  this  power.  I  know  no  other  way  under  the  pres- 
ent industrial  system  by  which  they  can  obtain  it.  I  have 
never  heard  any  other  way  suggested. 

By  this  method  they  do  maintain  their  freedom  and 
prevent  the  degradation  to  which,  without  organization,  they 
are  doomed.  There  is  no  question  that,  in  the  well-weighed 
words  of  John  Mitchell,  ''trade-unionism  has  justified  its 
existence  by  good  works  and  high  purposes.  ...  It  has 
elevated  the  standard  of  living  of  the  American  workman 
and  conferred  upon  him  higher  wages  and  more  leisure. 
It  has  increased  efficiency,  diminished  accidents,  averted  dis- 
ease, kept  the  children  at  school,  raised  the  moral  tone  of 
the  factories."  Much  of  the  legislation  by  which  the  con- 
ditions of  the  laboring  classes  have  been  improved  is  due 
to  the  initiative  of  the  unions.  Beyond  all  controversy, 
that  frightful  deterioration  of  the  industrial  classes  which 
the  large  sj^stem  of  industry  set  in  deadly  operation  has 
been  arrested,  and  the  lot  of  the  laboring  man  has  been 
vastly  improved  during  the  last  seventy-five  years.  No  such 
horrible   living  conditions   as   those   which   I   have  described 


156  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

above  can  be  found  to-day  in  the  great  factory  towns  of 
Great  Britain;  even  "the  submerged  tenth"  are  living  far 
more  decently  now^  than  the  average  mechanic  was  living 
then.  Even  Pittsburgh,  in  all  its  misery,  is  a  paradise  com- 
pared with  Manchester  and  Glasgow  in  the  third  and  fourth 
dec£ides  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Many  causes  have 
wrought  together  to  produce  this  improvement,  but  the  stu- 
dents of  social  science  agree  in  their  judgment  that  the 
most  efficient  cause  .of  that  improvement  has  been  the  or- 
ganization of  labor.  It  has  enabled  the  working  people  to 
resist  the  pressure  that  would  have  degraded  them,  and  to 
demand  and  secure  a  fairer  share  of  the  wealth  which  their 
labor  produces. 

It  is  true  that  not  all  workingmen  have  been  included 
in  the  unions,  but  even  those  outside  the  organizations  have 
largely  shared  in  the  gains  that  have  been  won  by  or- 
ganized labor.  When,  in  an  open  shop,  the  union  suc- 
ceeds in  getting  better  wages  or  shorter  hours,  the 
non-union  men  get  the  benefit  of  the  rise.  The  unor- 
ganized trades,  like  that  of  the  sewing  women,  have,  no 
doubt,  often  been  exploited  by  their  employers;  but  the  gen- 
eral level  of  wages  is  undoubtedly  kept  up  by  the  labor 
unions. 

So  great  have  been  the  benefits  which  unionism  has 
brought  to  the  laboring  classes  and  to  the  communitj-  at 
large  that  a  philosophic  statesman  like  Professor  Thorold 
Rogers,  of  Oxford,  declared  that  if  he  had  the  making  of  the 
laws  he  would  exclude  from  the  franchise  all  workingmen 
who  were  not  members  of  trade  unions.  Certain  it  is  that 
the  man  who  proposes  to  outlaw  or  exterminate  them  as- 
sumes a  heavy  responsibility. 


NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 

Atlantic  Monthly.  109:  758-70.  June,  1912. 
Value    of    Existing  Trade-Unionism.     Charles    Norman    Fay. 


During  the  thirty  years  from  1879  to  1909  I  was  at  the 
head  successively  of  several  corporations  employing  from 
two  hundred  to  two  thousand  working  people.  Like  most 
believers  in  democracy  I  originally  believed  also  in  the  or- 
ganization of  labor;  in  the  right  of  the  working  men,  singly 
weak,  to  strengthen  themselves  by  union  in  any  honest  ef- 
fort for  their  own  betterment.  I  believed  that  organization, 
bringing  to  the  front  the  ablest  minds  among  their  number, 
would  tend  to  educate  the  working  people  in  the  economics 
of  labor,  to  their  own  good  and  that  of  the  community. 
Results,  however,  have  been  disappointing.  The  manage- 
ment of  trade  unions  appears  to  have  become  like  that  of 
city  politics — an  affair  of  personal  self-interest  rather  than 
of  the  public  good.  This  conclusion  is  drawn  from  various 
personal  experiences,  and  from  public  documents  to  which 
I  shall  hereafter  refer. 

I  came  into  contact  with  organized  labor  when,  about 
1899,  a  small  typewriter  factory  in  Chicago  which  I  con- 
trolled, employing  some  two  hundred  and  fifty  men,  joined 
the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  consisting  of 
over  three  thousand  of  the  largest  employers  in  the  United 
States.  At  the  moment  I  found  its  attention  preoccupied 
with  the  matter  of  union  labor.  A  great  dread  of  labor  un- 
ions swept  over  employers  about  1900,  and  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers,  the  Anti-Boycott  Association, 
the  Metal  Trades'  Association,  the  Typothetre,  and  many 
local  associations  were  formed,  largely  for  the  purpose  of 
defense.  Labor  conditions  grew  worse;  strikes,  original  and 
sympathetic,   multiplied,  until   many  employers   moved   their 


158  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

works  out  of  the  city,  and  many  others,  including  our  con- 
cern, opened  negotiations  with  various  country  towns  for 
removal  thither.  We  joined  the  Anti-Boycott  Association, 
about  1901,  and  1  became  a  member  of  the  committee  in 
charge  of  the  litigation  begun  by  this  association  in  the 
Chicago  courts.  1  was  made,  about  the  same  time,  the  vice- 
president  for  Illinois  of  the  National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers, and  subsequently  the  chairman  of  its  special  com- 
mittee on  strike  insurance. 

My  company's  factory  was  unionized  in  1903,  for  the 
lirst  time  in  its  nine  years  of  existence,  and  forthwith  was 
"struck"  by  six  unions  affiliated  with  the  Chicago  Federation 
of  Labor.  The  union  demands  included  an  eight-hour  day 
instead  of  ten  hours,  an  advance  of  twenty  per  cent  in 
wages,  the  handing  over  of  shop  rules  and  discipline  to  a 
union  committee,  the  sanctioning  of  sympathetic  strikes,  the 
closed  shop,  and  a  number  of  lesser  requirements. 

Our  company  was  young.  Engaged  as  we  were  in  a 
fierce  competition  with  the  so-called  Typewriter  Trust,  and 
other  large  typewriter  makers,  whose  works  were  without 
exception  in  country  towns,  and  who  paid  lower  wages  for 
ten  hours  a  day,  the  narrow  margin  of  profits  which  we  had 
attained  would  have  vanished  instanter,  and  we  should  have 
started  at  once  toward  bankruptcy.  I  stated  these  facts  to 
the  union  leaders,  and  invited  them  to  put  an  expert 
on  our  books  to  verify  my  assertion.  •  They  replied  that 
they  could  not  bother  with  our  books,  that  we  could  "cook" 
our  accounts  to  suit  ourselves,  and  anyhow  they  did  not 
care  to  deal  with  weak  concerns.  If  we  could  not  do  busi- 
ness in  Chicago  under  union  conditions,  we  had  better  get 
out  of  business  or  out  of  Chicago.  "What  then  of  our  men 
whom  you  have  just  unionized?"  I  asked.  "Would  you  des- 
troy their  jobs  forthwith?".  "They  must  sacrifice  themselves 
for  the  cause  of  labor,"  was  the  reply,  and  the  poor  fellows 
did.  As  the  business  agents  left  they  whistled,  and  most  of 
the  men  dropped  their  tools  and  marched  out. 

Before  this  there  had  been  a  fortnight  of  negotiations,  dur- 
ing which  I  looked  about  for  help.  I  tried  to  join  the  Metal 
Trades  and  Employers  Associations,  and  to  get  under  their 
collective-bargain    umbrella;    but    I    found    no    room    there. 


TRADE  UNIONS  159 

These  associations  were  controlled  by  the  larger  local  fac- 
tories such  as  the  harvester,  ice-machine  and  electrical  works, 
with  whose  methods,  scale  of  operations,  sales,  and  sea- 
sons, our  little  typewriter  factory  had  practically  nothing  in 
common.  Labor  conditions  which  were  tolerable  to  them 
were  to  us  about  as  deadly  as  the  union  demands.  So  I 
found  myself,  with  a  heavy  heart,  compelled  to  make  my 
light  alone. 

A  few  months  before,  I  had  met  on  the  railway  train  one 
of  the  Studebakers  of  South  Bend,  whose  factory  had  recent- 
ly passed  through  a  strike,  of  which  he  told  me  as  follows: — 

"There  had  never  been  any  unions  in  South  Bend  until 
the  organizers  came  from  Chicago  to  organize  our  men. 
As  soon  as  this  was  done,  they  called  a  strike.  Their  de- 
mands seemed  to  us  impossible.  So  we  called  the  men  to- 
gether, and  I  made  them  a  speech.  I  said  to  them,  'We 
have  got  along  with  you  men,  from  father  to  son,  for  thirty 
years,  and  have  never  had  any  trouble  until  these  strangers 
came'  in  to  rhake  it.  Now  you  have  put  up  to  us  demands 
that  we  believe  are  impossible.  You,  of  course,  believe  the 
other  way.  And  what  you  believe,  any  other  body  of  men 
are  likely  to  believe.  If  we  can't  get  along  with  you,  we 
can't  get  along  with  anybody  else.  Therefore,  we  are  not 
going  to  try  to  supply  your  places  or  to  run  tliis  factory 
unless  we  run  it  with  you.  We  shall  simply  shut  down 
and  give  you  a  chance  to  look  around  for  a  better  job.  If 
you  don't  succeed  in  finding  one  and  wish  to  come  back, 
the  old  job  is  ready  for  you  on  the  old  conditions  whenever 
men  enough  decide  to  come  to  work  to  run  the  shops.  If 
you  never  come  back  the  shops  will  stay  closed.' 

"So  we  shut  down  and  left  simply  the  watchmen  there, 
as  at  night.  We  employed  no  strike-breakers,  and  there 
was  no  hard  feeling.  After  a  few  weeks  the  older  men  be- 
gan to  think  and  argue  and,  in  the  course  of  two  months, 
the  strike  gradually  faded  but.  The  men  came  back,  a  few 
at  a  time,  work  started  up,  and  we  have  been  non-union 
ever  since.  No  property  was  wrecked  and  no  men  killed, 
and  we  have  had  nothing  to  regret." 

Mr.  Studebaker's  narrative  impressed  me  strongly,  and 
when  I  faced  a  similar  situation  I  followed  his  lead  exactly. 


i6o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

We  paid  off  the  men  and  inclosed  in  every  pay  envelope  a 
letter  stating  that  we  should  not  fill  the  men's  places,  but 
merely  wait  until  they  found  out  that  all  the  unions  in  Chi- 
cago could  not  furnish  them  another  job;  after  which,  if 
they  chose  to  come  back,  the  old  jobs  would  be  ready  under 
the  old  conditions.  If  they  found  other  work  and  did  not 
return  in  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  we  should  feel  free  to 
start  up  with  new  employees,  first  giving  each  man  ten 
days'  notice  so  that  he  could,  if  he  chose,  apply  for  his  old 
situation. 

So  the  shop  remained  closed  for  nearly  eight  weeks. 
The  unions  picketed  it  in  the  meantime,  but  without  reason. 
After  six  weeks  the  majority  of  the  men  indicated  that  they 
wished  to  return  to  work,  and  we  gave  them  the  agreed  ten 
days'  notice.  Before  starting  up,  as  many  of  the  men  ex- 
pressed the  fear  of  slugging,  we  agreed  to  put  the  property 
under  the  protection  of  the  courts,  and  applied  for  an  injunc- 
tion restraining  the  unions  and  our  union  employees  from 
picketing,  intimidation,  and  violence. 

Nevertheless,  on  the  day  that  work  was  resumed,  two 
men  were  slugged.  We  caught  the  sluggers,  brought  them 
before  the  court,  had  them  sentenced,  and  then  had  the 
sentence  suspended  during  good  behavior.  We  also  furnished 
our  men  with  police  escort  to  and  from  work. 

These  precautions  ended  all  difficulties.  The  majority  of 
our  eniploj-ees  privately  told  their  foreman  that  they  had 
had  no  grievances,  and  had  joined  the  union  only  because 
they  were  afraid  to  stay  out.  As  soon  as  they  felt  them- 
selves protected  by  the  law,  they  quit  the  unions  and  re- 
turned to  work. 

None  of  them  except  the  pickets  receiyed  strike  benefits 
from  the  unions  while  the  strike  lasted,  although  they  had 
been  told  when  joining  the  unions  that  a  large  war-fund  had 
been  laid  by  in  previous  years  in  anticipation  of  this  year 
of  struggle,  from  which  they  shouW  benefit.  When  our 
strike  was  announced  in  the  papers,  the  Chicago  manager 
of  a  detective  agency  called  to  see  me,  stating  that  his  office 
made  a  specialty  of  handling  strikes,  and  that  he  could  give 
me   advance   information   of  every  movement   made   against 


TRADE  UNIONS  i6i 

our  company.  I  expressed  some  doubt  as  to  his  ability  to 
do  so.     He  replied  about  as  follows: — 

"These  union  leaders  are  all  grafters;  they  will  take 
money  from  you,  or  from  me,  from  the  politicians,  and 
from  the  men, — anywhere  they  can  get  it.  Our  agency 
practically  owns  an  official  in  every  important  union  in 
America.  We  will  give  you  detailed  type-written  reports  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  executive  and  finance  committees  of 
the  six  unions  with  which  you  are  concerned.  When  you 
start  up,  the  unions  will  slip  a  union  man  in  your  shop  to 
r^-organize  it.  We  will  slip  one  of  our  operatives  in  there, 
too,  and  he  will  keep  you  informed  as  to  what  the  union 
man  is  doing." 

He  finally  persuaded  me  to  accept  his  services,  and  for 
nearly  six  months  I  received  his  daily  reports,  whose  accu- 
racy, regarding  our  strike  at  least,  was  sufficiently  verified 
by  my  knowledge  of  the  facts  from  our  own  side.  The 
financial  statements,  which  came  in  twice  a  month,  showed 
that  but  one-fifth  of  the  union  war-fund  came  back  to  the 
men,  mostly  in  the  shape  of  pay  for  pickets,  while  four- 
fifths  went  in  salaries  and  expenses  of  the  organization. 
The  largest  single  items  were  the  bills  of  a  certain  lawyer, 
perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  champion  of  downtrodden 
labor  in  America,  aggregating  many  thousands  of  dollars, 
paid  him  for  defending  sluggers  and  fighting  injunctions 
against  violence  and  intimidation  of  non-union  men.  Our 
strike  collapsed  in  about  eleven  weeks,  but  according  to 
these  statements  our  pickets,  who  disappeared  from  the 
neighborhood  entirely  about  that  time,  were  continuing  to 
draw  pay  when  I  stopped  taking  the  statements  some  three 
months  after.  As  the  business  agents  were  frequently  seen 
about  our  neighborhood,  and  must  have  known  that  the 
pickets  were  not  there,  the  interesting  query  arises — zvlio  got 
the  money  that  was  charged  as  paid  for  the  services  of  the 
latter? 

Another  interesting  item  in  the  financial  report  was  two 
dollars  per  man  paid  to  the  organizers  for  organizing  our 
shop.  To  cover  this,  each  man  had  been  charged  three  dol- 
lars initiation  fee,  and  about  fifty  of  our  men  failed  to  pay 
it.     After    the    collapse    of    the    strike    the    business    agents 


i62  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

proposed  to  me  to  "call  it  off,"  provided  the  company  would 
pay  the  union  the  amount  of  these  defaulted  initiation  fees, 
— a  proposal  quite  in  keeping  with  the  whole  miserable  per- 
formance. 

When  we  linally  started  up  as  a  non-union  shop,  desir- 
ing to  keep  out  union  spies  while  lilling  a  few  vacancies,  we 
advertised,  anonymously  for  men  of  the  six  trades,  in  three 
different  ways,  thus  running  eighteen  "ads"  at  once:  for 
union  men,  closed  shop — for  non-union  men,  non-union 
shop — and  for  men,  open  shop.  Nearly  a  hundred  ap- 
plicants answered  both  union  and  non-union  adver- 
tisements and  were,  of  course,  rejected;  but  the  far 
more  interesting  development  was  the  fact  that  out  of 
about  one  thousand  applications  received  by  mail  over  eight 
hundred  and  fifty  were  for  the  non-union  job.  Many  wrote 
strongly,  eager  for  steady  work  from  which  they  could  not 
be  called  by  business  agents  every  little  while.  Even  from 
the  "polishers,^'  supposed  to  be  solidly  unionized,  of  fifty-one 
applications  thirty-one  were  for  the  non-union  job.  This 
"straw  vote"  satisfied  mc  that  our  little  shop  at  least  could 
ignore  the  unions;  and  it  did. 

Meantime  the  work  of  the  Anti-Boycott  Association  was 
going  on  in  Chicago  and  the  vicinity.  Its  purpose  was  to 
enforce  the  common  and  statute  law  regarding  conspiracy 
and  combination  in  restraint  of  trade  against  the  labor  un- 
ions. The  strikes  of  1901-1903  afforded  a  favorable  oppor- 
tunity, and  Chicago  a  strategic  point  for  its  operations. 
Several  important  injunction  suits  were  brought  and  fought 
through  the  local  committee  of  which  I  was  a  member.  The 
moral  effect  of  the  protection  of  the  courts  upon  the  labor- 
ing population  was  so  marked  that,  during  the  years  from 
1900  to  1903,  not  far  from  one  hundred  injunctions  were 
taken  out  in  Chicago  and  the  vicinity.  It  became  well  un- 
derstood among  employers  that  the  majority  of  employees, 
even  union  nic>n,  preferred  to  remain  at  work  if  protected; 
naturally  the  hostility  of  the  unions  to  the  issuing  of  injunc- 
tions by  the  courts  grew  bitter,  and  still  persists. 

Eventually  less  aggressive  counsels  prevailed  in  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Manufacturers.  Suggestions  of  a  great 
fighting   association   of   employers   and    the    formation   of   a 


TRADE  UNIONS  .    163 

large  war-fund,  of  extensive  lock-outs  and  the  like,  came  to 
nothing.  Collective  bargaining  accomplished  little.  The 
Studebaker  method  of  non-resistance,  involving  merely  abil- 
ity to  shut  down,  appealed  to  me  as  the  best  defense  against 
professional  trade-unionism.  I  therefore  proposed  at  the 
annual  meeting  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufactur- 
ers a  method  of  conferring  that  ability  on  every  member; 
namely,  a  plan  for  mutual  strike  insurance,  permitting  any 
member  to  insure  against  loss  of  profits  and  waste  of  fixed 
charged  during  idleness  caused  by  strikes. 

The  Honorable  Carroll  D.  Wright,  Commissioner  of  La- 
bor, had  published,  in  1901,  the  first  report  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Commerce  and  Labor  on  Strikes  and  Lock-outs, 
covering  the  years  1881  to  1900.  The  averages  from  this 
report  indicated  that  such  insurance  could  be  written  at  a 
premium  of  less  than  one  per  cent  per  annum. 

The  association  listened  to  the  suggestion  and  appointed 
a  committee  on  strike  insurance,  of  which  I  was  made 
chairman;  and  in  that  capacity  I  conducted  an  extensive  cor- 
respondence, sending  out  printed  interrogatories  to  the  en- 
tire membership  of  the  association,  which  yielded  much 
valuable  information, — among  other  things  the  fact  that 
union  labor  was  universally  found  to  be  from  thirty  to  forty 
per  cent  less  efificient  than  non-union  labor. 

I  then  thought,  and  still  think,  strike  insurance  an  abso- 
lutely lawful,  cheap,  and  practical  method  of  cooperation 
among  employers,  which  if  generally  adopted  would  put 
professional  labor  leaders  clean  out  of  busmess.  For  an 
employer  need  only  say  to  the  business  agents,  "Go  ahead 
and  strike.  It  will  cost  me  nothing.  I  am  insured,  and  I 
will  shut  down  and  go  fishing  until  the  men  feel  like  going 
to    work    again." 

But  my  associates,  like  myself,  had  had  their  experience 
in  1903;  and  had  found  out  that  unionism  had  not  entirely 
superseded  the  laws  of  supply  and  demand.  They  answered 
my  committee  substantially  as  follows:  "Your  proposals  are 
sound,  but  not  worth  while.  We  do  not  have  strikes  very 
often.  When  business  is  good,  and  we  want  men,  we  have 
to  bid  up  for  them;  when  it  is  bad  and  we  do  not  want 
them,   they  come   around   after  us.     We  prefer  to  take  our 


i64    -  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

chances,  and   if  a   strike   comes,   meet   it  in   our   own   way. 
■  Organized   or   not,   we   can    and   will   pay    labor   only   what 
trade  justifies." 

In  short,  by  1904,  to  these  representative  employers,  over 
three  thousand  of  the  largest  in  the  land,  organized  labor 
was  no  longer  the  devouring  monster  of  1900,  but  had 
shrunk  to  a  mere  gad-fly  of  trade,  at  which  the  patient  ox 
of  industry  might  indeed  switch  an  uneasy  tail,  but  against 
which  it  was  scarcely  worth  while  to  screen  him. 

Later  on,  our  company  dropped  out  of  the  National  As- 
sociation of  Manufacturers  and  of  the  Anti-Boycott  Asso- 
ciation, and  my  personal  contact  with  the  labor  organiza- 
tions ceased.  I  now  relate  these  experiences  merely  as  a 
'"story"  to  lead  the  reader  on  to  a  far  more  important  and 
convincing  array  of  facts  found  in  certain  public  documents, 
namely : — 

The  Second  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor,  on 
Strikes  and  Lockouts  from  1881  to  1905;  the  Report  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  the  Course  of  Prices  and  Wages  from 
J900  to  1907;  of  the  Census  Bureau  on  Manufactures  brought 
down  to  1905;  and  the  advance  bulletins  of  the  Census  of 
1910. 

According  to  the  first-mentioned  report,  there  were  in 
the  United  States  in  1905,  besides  transportation  companies, 
some  216,262  wage-paying  concerns,  employing  6,157,751 
workers.  In  1881  the  workers  numbered  4,257,613;  so 
that  for  the  twenty-five  years  included  their  average 
number  may  be  assumed  as  5,200,000.  During  this 
period  there  were  no  less  than  36,757  strikes  (not 
counting  those  of  less  than  a  day),  involving  181,407 
concerns,  and  1546  lockouts  involving  18,547  concerns.  Neg- 
lecting the  lock-outs  and  excluding  railroad  employees, 
8,485,600  persons  were  thrown  out  of  employment  by  strikes, 
for  an  average  period  of  25.4  days.  These  totals  are  large 
enough  to  form  the  basis  of  reliable  percentages  and  sound 
conclusions.  Assuming  the  low  normal  of  250  working  days 
per  annum,  we  may  figure  the  total  time  lost  by  strikes  dur- 
ing that  twenty-five  years  as  two  thirds  of  one  per  cent  of 
normal  working  time — an  almost  negligible  fraction. 

Of  the  establishments  involved,  90  per  cent  were  "struck" 
by  organized,  and  but  10  per  cent  by  unorganized  labor. 


TRADE  UNIONS  165 

Organized  labor  won  or  partly  won  in  65  per  cent,  and 
unorganized  labor  in  44  per  cent,  of  strikes  undertaken. 

Lock-outs  averaged  85  days  in  duration  against  25.4  days 
for  strikes.  Employers  won  or  partly  won  in  68  per  cent  of 
the  lock-outs  begun. 

Sixty-seven  per  cent  of  all  strikes  were  for  wages,  hours, 
and  other  primary  questions  between  employers  and  their 
men;  33  per  cent  were  for  recognition  of  the  unions,  and 
other  secondary  questions  between  employers  and  the  un- 
ions, as  distinguished  from  the  men.  But,  during  the  twenty- 
five  years,  as  labor  organization  progressed,  this  proportion 
changed  steadily  and  significantly.  In  1881,  for  instance, 
wage  questions  caused  71  per  cent  of  the  strikes,  and  "recog- 
nition" but  7  per  cent.  In  1905  the  figures  were  respectively 
37  and  36  per  cent.  As  the  percentage  of  strikes  for  recog- 
nition rose,  the  percentage  of  victories  fell,  from  the  grand 
average  of  65  per  cent  for  the  twenty-five  years,  to  52  per 
cent  in  1904  and  1905,  the  last  two  years. 

Substantially  no  strikes  were  undertaken  for  sanitary 
conditions,  or  against  dangerous  machinery,  child  or  female 
labor,  and  the  like  welfare  questions,  which  the  labor  leaders 
have  practically  left  to  the  philanthropists. 

To-day,  after  fifty  years  of  organization,  we  may  say 
roughly  that  70  per  cent  of  the  industrial  workers  and  90 
per  cent  of  all  wage-earners  remain  non-union  and  may  be 
presumed  not  to  favor  strike-machines.  The  enormous  ma- 
jority of  wage-workers  neither  unionize  nor  strike,  but  pre- 
fer to  remain  at  work  and  settle  their  wage  questions  and 
working  conditions  for  themselves  directly  with  their  em- 
ployers. 

II 


In  valuing  the  widely  differing  results  of  strike-effort, 
that  is,  the  efficiency  of  trade-unions,  certain  general  con- 
siderations must  be  borne  in  mind.  "The  destruction  of  the 
poor  is  their  poverty."  AH  an  employer  needs  to  win  any 
ordinary  strike  is  the  ability  merely  to  shut  down,  and  wait 
until  starvation  does  its  work.  This  he  knows  perfectly 
well.     But  low  wages,  long  hours,  and  such  primary  ques- 


l66  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tions  between  him  and  his  men  are  seldom  worth  to  him  a 
shut-down,  or  a  fight  to  keep  running.  They  mean  merely 
increased  cost  of  labor  which,  like  that  of  material,  can 
generally  be  added  to  prices,  and  the  burden  passed  along 
to  the  consumer.  Indeed,  the  large  majority  of  increases 
and  decreases,  the  natural  fluctuations  of  wages  and  prices, 
take  place  automatically  under  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand; and  differences  come  to  the  striking  point,  as  we 
have  seen,  only  two-thirds  of  one  per  cent  of  the  time — 
which  is  too  seldom  to  count  much.  Ordinarily,  therefore, 
the  emploj'er  is  indifferent,  and  easily  yields  wages  and 
hours  demanded.  He  is  seldom  the  tyrant  blood-sucker  of 
helpless  laboring  men,  women,  and  children  that  union 
leaders  and  muck-rakers  love  to  depict;  with  rare  excep- 
tions he  is  a  pretty  decent  fellow,  who  likes  his  working 
people,  and  willingly  pays  full  going  wages,  and  runs  as 
short  hours  as  his  trade  will  permit. 

Of  prime  importance  to  him,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the 
kind  of  work  he  gets  for  wages  paid  during  the  ggys  per 
cent  of  the  time  between  strikes.  "No  man  can  serve  two 
masters;  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other; 
or  he  will  hold  to  the  one,  and  despise  the  other."  When 
"recognition"  means  that  employees  must  take  orders  from 
half  a  dozen  different  unions  instead  of  from  the  man  who 
pays  them;  that  old  and  faithful  hands  must  unionize  or 
leave,  that  sympathetic  strikes  and  boycotts  and  refusal  to 
handle  non-union  material  may  unexpectedly  and  uselessly 
involve  him  in  the  troubles  of  distant  strangers;  in  short, 
that  brains,  foresight,  and  energy  may  any  day  be  ripped 
out  of  his  business,  as  a  scullion  rips  the  vitals  from  a  fish, 
and  it  must  broil  helpless  on  the  gridiron  of  competition, — 
all  of  this  being  exactly  what  "recognition"  docs  mean, — 
verily  the  employer  is  bound  to  fight  or  lock  out,  if  he  can. 
But  first,  with  property  and  trade  at  stake,  he  carefully  con- 
siders his  position. 

He  cannot  fight  or  lock  out,  but  must  yield  for  the  nonce, 
when,  as  in  the  building  trades,  time  is  of  the  essence  of  his 
obligations,  with  important  work  to  be  finished  by  a  day 
certain;  or  when  he  is  financially  so  weak  that  he  must 
keep  going  or  fail.     He  cannot  yield  or  lock  out,  but  must 


TRADE  UNIONS  167 

fight,  when,  as  in  the  railroad  and  other  public  service,  the 
law  and  franchises  enforce  continuous  operation,  yet  limit 
prices  for  service;  or  when,  as  of  late  in  the  Isoft-coal  and 
garment  trades,  competition  is  so  intense  as  to  have  pre- 
cisely the  same  effect.  The  poor  chap  ponders  long,  and 
often  decides  wrongly.  But  the  labor  leaders  are  held  back 
by  no  financial  responsibility  of  their  own  or  of  their  un- 
ions. The  union  men  may  suffer  individually,  but  the 
leaders'  comfortable  salaries  run  on,  and  union  treasuries 
are  on  tap.  The  leaders'  personal  importance  increases 
enormously  during  a  strike,  while  for  the  grafters  among 
them — and  union  history  is  full  of  graft — the  strike  is  their 
greatest  opportunity. 

The  student  can  understand,  then,  why  there  were  ten 
strikes  to  one  lockout,  and  nine  union  strikes  to  one  called 
by  unorganized  labor;  why  labor  has  won  the  majority  of 
strikes  so  far,  and  lost  the  majority  of  lock-outs;  why,  as 
they  strike  more  and  more  for  "recognition"  and  like  second- 
ary causes,  the  unrons  win  less  and  less;  and  why  the  lead- 
ers fight  three  times  as  desperately,  and  hold  their  unlucky 
followers  out  three  times  as  long  for  "recognition,"  involving 
their  own  power  and  prestige,  as  for  wages,  concerning  only 
the  men — yet,  nevertheless,  lose  oftener  in  the  end.  One  can 
understand,  too,  why,  when  trade  conditions  compel  reduc- 
tions of  wages  or  demand  shop  discipline  and  efficiency, 
capital  takes  a  stand  and  labor  is  comparatively  helpless. 

And  finally  one  can  understand  why — as  Allan  Pinkerton 
said  of  the  MoUie  McGuire  thirty  years  ago — "Organized  la- 
bor is  organized  violence."  It  must  always  be.  So  long  as 
the  great  majority  of  laborers  remain  outside  the  unions, 
and  a  majority  of  those  inside  are  there  only  through  fear, 
terrorism  becomes  the  only  means  of  preventing  free  com- 
petition in  labor  and  the  settlement  of  strikes  according  to 
the  real  attractiveness,  or  the  contrary,  of  labor  conditions. 
Samuel  Gompers  is  credited  by  a  recent  New  York  daily 
with  the  remark,  "Organized  labor  without  violence  is  a 
joke."  It  seems  impossible  that  we  should  have  said  such  a 
thing,  but  the  thing  itself  is  true  of  existing  trade-unionism. 

Seeing  then  that  labor  is  at  actual  "war"  with  capital  but 
two  thirds  of  one  per  cent  of  the  time;  and  that  even  then 


i68  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

organized  labor  wins  but  three  times  to  unorganized  labor's 
twice,  what  after  all  is  all  this  colossal  organization  worth 
to  labor?  What  is  the  net  value  of  three  wins  to  two  during 
less  than  one  per  cent  of  the  time?  Does  this  minute  in- 
crease of  efficiency  justify  the  cost  of  organization  during 
the  remaining  ninety-nine  per  cent? 

The  labor  leaders  will  answer  that  organization  is  the 
sole  foundation  of  good  wages  all  the  time.  Well,  is  it? 
Let  us  turn  to  the  Senate  Report  on  Wages  and  Prices  for 
the  following  testimony: — 

While  from  1900  to  1907  the  average  price  of  25  leading 
commodities  advanced  17  per  cent,  farm  labor,  entirely  un- 
organized, advanced  from  60  to  67  per  cent.  Ribbon  and 
hosiery  mill-labor,  poorly  organized,  two  thirds  of  whose 
strikes  failed  (see  strike  report)  advanced  respectively  44 
and  36  per  cent;  railway  labor,  highly  organized,  advanced 
as  follows:  trainmen  33  per  cent,  machinists  30  per  cent, 
engineers  20  per  cent,  miscellaneous  18  per  cent;  build- 
ing-trades labor,  over-organized,  advanced  but  32  per  cent; 
cabinet-makers,   well-organized,    advanced    but   20   per   cent. 

Another  comparison  from  the  same  report  of  wages  paid 
in  1907  in  different  cities  and  countries,  shows  that  union 
carpenters  earned  in  Philadelphia  $21  per  week,  in  Louis- 
ville $18,  in  Baltimore  $21,  in  Chicago  $27.50,  in  London, 
England,  $10.65.  Union  compositors  earned  in  Philadelphia 
43  cents  per  hour,  in  Chicago  67  cents,  in  San  Francisco  80 
cents. 

That  is  to  say,  of  the  different  classes  considered  by  the 
Senate  Committee,  entirely  unorganized,  unskilled  labor 
gained  most  in  wages,  badly  organized  labor  came  next,  and 
the  best  organized  and  strongest  of  all  union  labor,  the  rail- 
way engineers,  gained  least ;  while  laborers  of  the  same 
unions  at  one  and  the  same  time,  in  different  cities  of  the 
same  country,  drew  widely  different  and  apparently  incon- 
sistent rates  of  wages  for  the  same  work. 

How  can  these  contradictory  facts  be  accounted  for  on 
the  theory  that  unionism  is  the  foundation  of  wage  scales? 
//  is  not.  Actually,  they  are  fixed  the  world  over  by  local 
conditions  of  supply,  demand,  and  efficiency;  and  trade- 
unionism  has  had  about  as  much  effect  upon  them,  broadly 


TRADE    UNIONS  169 

speaking,  as  has  had  that  magnificent  fake,  the  protective 
tariff. 

If  unionism  cannot,  what  then  can  secure  for  the  work- 
ingman  high  wages,  that  is,  a  high  standard  of  living?  The 
answer  is  plain — nothing  but  efficiency:  high-producing  pow- 
er conferred  on  labor  by  conjunction  with  brains  and  capital. 
This  almost  axiomatic  proposition  is  prettily  demonstrated 
by  the  1905  Census  Report  on  Manufactures,  which  shows: — 

That  small  establishments  whose  annual  product  amount- 
ed to  $5000  or  less  employed  1.9  per  cent  of  the  labor,  drew 
1.6  per  cent  of  the  pay-roll,  and  produced  1.2  per  cent  of  the 
total  output. 

That  middle-sized  concerns  of  $100,000  to  $200,000  annual 
product,  employed  18.8  per  cent  of  the  labor,  drew  18.3  per 
cent  of  the  wages,  and  produced  14.4  per  cent  of  the  output. 

That  large  concerns  of  $1,000,000  or  more  annual  product 
employed  25.6  per  cent  of  the  labor,  drew  27.2  per  cent  of 
the  pay-roll,  and  produced  38  per  cent  of  the  output. 

Evidently  the  little  fellow  who  is  "crushed  by  the  trust" 
and  goes  to  work  for  it,  "no  longer  free  but  a  mere  slave," 
draws  more  pay  than  before,  as  it  grows  bigger,  and  his 
efficiency  grows  with  it.  A  little  of  the  resulting  saving 
comes  to  him  direct;  a  little  goes  to  the  trust;  but  the  bulk 
of  it  comes  to  you  and  me,  to  everybody,  himself  included, 
in  reduction  of  prices  and  cost  of  living.  That  is  the  law  of 
trade. 

How  much  ought  to  come  to  him  direct?  What  should 
be  his  share  of  the  increment  of  his  productive  value  due  not 
to  himself,  but  to  capital  and  brains?  Not  much!  Like  the 
"unearned  increment"  on  real  estate,  most  of  it  rightfully  be- 
longs to  the  community;  and  one  way  or  another  the  com- 
munity gets  it.  What  then  are  those  "rights  of  labor,"-  which 
labor  is  to  get  'when  Mr.  Gompers's  prophecy  of  the  final 
domination  of  muscle  over  mind  is  realized?  Probably  la- 
bor itself  would  define  them  as  an  even  "divide,"  master  and 
man  alike,  all  round.  Well,  what  would  that  amount  to? 
Here  is  a  crude  guess. 

The  census  of  1910  gives  the  total  wealth  of  the  nation 
as  about  107,000  millions  of  dollars,  of  which  about  one 
quarter  was  in  the  land;  which  last  the  nation  neither  made 


170  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

nor  saved.  The  rest  was  in  worldly  goods  produced  by  all, 
and  saved  by  some  of  us.  It  amounts  to,  say  $983  each  for 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  United  States;  or,  say, 
$4500  per  family.  At  the  usual  capitalistic  return  of  5  per 
cent  this  would  yield  $225  per  annum,  or  61  cents  per  day 
per  family.  That  is,  were  all  the  brains  and  property  of  the 
country  to  continue  as  now  at  the  service  of  labor,  and  were 
it  to  work  as  hard  as  now,  and  were  each  family  head  to 
draw  61  cents  per  day  greater  average  pay,  labor  would  get 
everything — nothing  left  for  capital,  brains,  and  time  spent 
in  evolution  of  the  commercial  situation. 

Labor,  would  probably  turn  upon  Gompers  and  say,  "Is 
that  all?  Where  are  our  rights — our  automobiles  and  Scotch 
castles,  our  golf  and  idle  days?"  And  some  wiser  man  than 
Edward  Bellamy  would  answer,  ''Those  things  are  not  on 
the  cards,  boys.  You  will  each  have  to  turn  out  many  hun- 
dred times  more  work  than  you  are  doing  every  day  in 
order  to  pass  such  luxuries  around."  The  boys  would  prob- 
ably reply,  "If  6i  cents  a  day  extra,  and  hard  work  for  life, 
is  all  there  is  in  it,  we  will  take  a  vacation  and  spend  our 
$4500  apiece  right  now,  and  have  one  good  time  while  it 
lasts." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  are  no  "rights,"  there  is  no 
enormous  profit  stolen  from  its  daily  toil,  which  labor  does 
not  get.  The  whole  wealth  of  the  country,  its  accumula- 
tion of  three  centuries,  was  80,000  million  dollars  in  1910, 
land-values  neglected.  The  farm  products  of  that  year 
were  9000  millions,  the  industrial  products  15,000  millions, 
and  the  precious  metals  126  millions;  probably  all  in  all  we 
,  produced  25,000  millions  of  dollars  value  last  year.  The 
savings  of  three  centuries,  then,  are  barely  three  years  prod- 
uct! and  they,  too,  are  perishable.  The  food  and  merchan- 
dise disappear  in  a  year;  the  roads,  rolling-stock,  and  ma- 
chinery in  ten  years;  the  buildings,  say,  in  thirty.  All  must 
be  renewed  from  year  to  year.  The  world  really  lives  from 
hand  to  mouth,  its  toiling  millions  consuming  at  least  97  per 
cent  of  all  they  produce.  A  few  millions  of  workers  of  rare 
industry  and  thrift,  a  few  hundred  thousand  of  still  more 
brain  and  energy,  gather  together  the  small  fraction  that 
remains,   and    concentrate   it   by   the   world-wide   machinery 


TRADE  UNIONS  I7f 

of  modern  commerce  in  a  few  favored  countries — for  them- 
selves, as  they  fondly  suppose,  but  really,  under  a  mightier 
intelligence  than  theirs,  mainly  for  the  use  and  benelit  of 
labor,  which  works  and  thinks  as  little  as  possible,  and  saves 
hardly  at  all. 

Let  us  inquire  now  what  are  the  plainly  evident  interests 
of  wage-working  people,  and  upon  them  try  to  build  logical 
and  useful  principles  of  association  with  those  of  their  fellow 
men  who,  possessing  brains,  will  always  also  control  capital. 
Those  interests  are,  as  I  see  them: — 

Employment.  The  laborer  must  have  a  job,  furnished 
him  by  some  one  else,  for  he  has  not  the  ability  to  create 
one  for  himself.  It  must  be  continuous;  for  his  time  is  all 
he  has,  and  every  day  lost  is  so  much  pay  gone  forever.  He, 
himself,  should  be  the  last  man  to  interrupt  or  cripple  his 
own  job;  nor  should  it  be  subject  to  interruption  by  quar- 
rels of  other  men  with  other  jobs  in  which  he  has  no  con- 
cern. 

Freedom  to  work.  If  employment  fails,  does  not  pay,  or 
is  unsuitable,  it  is  absolutely  vital  that  the  laborer  shall  be 
free  to  seek  any  other  employment  or  locality  without  being 
shut  in  or  out  by  union  walls.  It  is  best  for  him,  as  for  the 
community,  that  labor,  like  capital,  should  be  liquid,  free  to 
flow  where  most  needed;  in  ample  supply  everywhere,  in 
stagnation   nowhere. 

The  highest  going  wages,  regularly  paid.  As  "going" 
wages  the  world  over  practically  absorb  the  product  of  each 
country,  it  is  idle  to  attempt  to  secure  more.  The  only  way 
the  laborer  can  induce,  or  indeed  enable,  his  employer  to  pay 
the  highest  wages  to  produce  the  utmost  in  return,  and 
make  him  prosperous.  For,  though  it  does  not  follow  that 
a  prosperous  business  always  pays  the  highest  wages,  a  los- 
ing business  practically  never  does.  Therefore,  up  to  the 
point  of  healthy  fatigue,  the  workman  in  his  own  interest 
should  put  his  heart  and  back  in  his  work,  in  fullest  accord 
with  the  brain  that  creates  and  pays  for  his  job;  doing  his 
level  best  to  increase  output  and  decrease  unit-cost  to  his 
employer  and  to  the  community. 

As  labor  seldom  saves,  and  figures  ahead  only  from  pay- 
day to  pay-day,  pay-days  must  be  regular  and  frequent,  and 


172  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  work  steady.  The  employer,  to  be  ideal,  must  be  strong 
and  successful;  in  short,  a  capitalist  as  far  as  possible  inde- 
pendent of  the  troubles  of  other  business  concerns. 

If  these  are  the  interests  of  labor,  they  are  plainly  iden- 
tical with  those  of  capital  and  of  the  community.  There 
will  always  remain  justly  to  be  determined,  however,  the 
questions,  what  are  "going  wages"  and  "healthy  fatigue." 

These  are  questions  of  fact  and  of  individual  capacity, 
whose  determining  factors,  in  spite  of  all  our  contrivances, 
will  probably  always  be  those  of  supply,  demand,  and  ef- 
ficiency in  open  market — namely,  of  competition:  questions 
whose  mastery  demands  more  study  than  average  working 
people  are  capable  of.  Nevertheless,  to  satisfy  "Labor" — 
which  nowadays  "wants  to  know,"  and  would  cut  loose  from 
simple  and  sound  old  methods, — that  labor-competition  is 
inevitable,  as  well  as  immediately  and  ultimately  just,  and 
yet  to  mitigate  as  far  as  may  be,  its  harshness,  "Capital" 
might  well,  it  seems  to  me,  utilize  the  fine  principle  of 
brotherhood,  of  strength  in  union  among  laboring  people; 
devising  for  the  larger  industries,  with  its  greater  intelli- 
gence, a  form  of  union  among  employees  more  logical  than 
present  unionism,  wage-contracts  more  just  to  the  individ- 
ual, and  more  efficient  than  present  collective  bargaining, 
and  last,  but  not  least,  a  practical  method  of  enforcing  such 
contracts  on  both  sides.  For  it  is  useless  to  make  contracts 
which  cannot  be  enforced.  The  law  will  not  compel  a  la- 
borer to  work,  and  neither  he  nor  his  union  has  any  prop- 
erty good  for  damages  resulting  from  his  breach  of  con- 
tract. When  the  pinch  comes,  the  union  leaders  calmly 
say  they  "cannot  hold  the  men"  (which  is  perfectly  true), 
and  that  is  the  end  of  their  contracts — mere  ropes  of  sand! 

Capital  prefers,  therefore,  to  hire  from  day  to  day,  and 
take  its  chances  of  getting  such  labor  as  it  wants  in  the 
open  market.  If,  now,  labor  desires  that  capital  shall  bind 
itself  by  long-term  contracts  to  stay  out  of  the  open  market, 
and  deal  only  with  particular  bodies  of  laborers,  it  is  not 
only  justice,  but  common  sense,  that  the  latter  also  shall  be 
bound,  and  that  their  side  of  the  contract  as  well  as  capital's 
shall  be  guaranteed  by  property. 

To  accomplish  all  this,  let  us  suppose  that  the  employer 


TRADE  UNIONS  173 

first,  in  order  to  disentangle  his  concern  from  the  labor 
troubles  of  others,  himself  quits  all  employers'  associations, 
and  proposes  to  his  employees  to  form  a  union  of  their  own, 
not  tied  to  other  unions  and  their  wars;  offering  each  man 
who  joins  it  a  written  contract  providing: — 

1.  For  its  termination  only  on  three  months'  notice  from 
either  party,  or  by  common  consent. 

2.  For  steady  work  without  strike  or  lock-out,  while 
trade  conditions  permit. 

3.  For  the  highest  efficiency  consistent  with  healthy 
fatigue,  and  corresponding  highest  "going"  wages;  reasonable 
maximum  scales  of  efficiency  and  wages  to  be  proposed  by 
the  employer  as  conditions  change  from  time  to  time,  em- 
ployees falling  below  maximum  efficiency  to  draw  reduced 
wages  pro  rata  to  performance. 

4.  For  the  prompt  acceptance  or  rejection,  by  represen- 
tative members  of  the  union,  of  trade  conditions,  scales  of 
efficiency  and  maximum  wages,  working  rules,  etc.,  from 
time  to  time  announced  or  proposed  by  the  employer;  fullest 
facilities  for  investigation  thereof  to  be  afforded  by  him. 

5.  For  the  creation  of  a  joint  guarantee  fund  equal,  say, 
to  five  per  cent  of  each  employee's  wages,  to  be  contributed 
on  pay-days,  one  half  by  him  and  one  half  by  the  employer, 
and  placed  in  trust  to  accumulate  at  interest;  its  sum  to  be 
divided  between  himself  and  the  employer  if  he  quits  or  is 
discharged  with  the  three  months'  notice,  or  by  mutual  con- 
sent; or  to  be  forfeited  entire  by  or  to  him,  if  he  quits  or  is 
discharged  zi'ithout  the  three  months'  notice,  during  his  first 
fifteen  years'  employment.  After  fifteen  years  he  may  at 
any  time  either  retire,  and  withdraw  the  whole  as  a  savings 
fund,  or  retire  on  a  pension  representing  it,  upon  giving  the 
"three  months"  notice. 

Employees  who  prefer  not  to  join  such  a  union  are  not 
to  be  forced  to  do  so,  or  to  quit  other  unions;  but  to  re- 
main without  benefits  as  ordinary  employees  by  the  day. 
Those  who  join  and  sign  contracts  are,  of  course,  free  to 
quit  or  strike  without  notice,  if  they  think  it  worth  while  to 
forfeit  their  'half  of  the  guarantee  fund.  In  case  of  a  dead- 
lock between  the  employer  and  the  union  representative,  the 
employer   as   well  as   the   men,   if  dissatisfied  with   existing 


174  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

scales  or  conditions,  must  give  notice  and  wait  three  months 
bjfore  lock-out  or  strike,  or  forfeit  the  guarantee  funds.  In- 
dividual men  preferring  not  to  give  notice  would,  of  course, 
hold  their  jobs  and  their  guarantee  funds. 

At  the  end  of  the  three  months'  notice,  should  the  dea<l- 
lock  continue,  the  men  would  draw  their  shares  of  the  ac- 
cumulated guarantee  fund,  and  go  their  ways,  sacrificing 
their  pension-standing,  etc.  The  employer  would  have  to 
build  up  a  new  force.  Probably  both  sides  would  try  the 
ordinary  endurance  test,  to  see  which  would  yield  first; 
the  men  better  financed  than  usual,  and  the  employer 
having  had  three  months  for  finishing  work  in  process  and 
preparing  to  shut  down,  with  his  share  of  the  guarantee 
fund  as  a  financial  anchor  to  windward.  The  possibility  of 
strikes  would  not  be  abolished,  but  would,  in  my  judgment, 
be  greatly  lessened  under  this  plan.  Nothing  clears  the 
judgment  like  financial  responsibility. 

Such  a  form  of  unionism  would,  it  seems  to  me,  pro- 
mote as  well  as  human  contrivance  can  the  common  inter- 
ests of  labor  and  capital,  namely,  continuous  employment, 
freedom  for  labor  to  flow  where  wanted,  high  efficiency  and 
high  wages. under  healthy  conditions;  and  would  add  to  the 
general  blessings  of  industrial  peace  the  special  blessings  of 
thrift  and  insurance.  A  prominent  western  actuary  recent- 
ly laid  before  his  employer  friends  a  plan  under  which  the 
employer's  half  of  such  a  fiye  per  cent  guarantee  fund 
would  more  than  suffice,  and  might  be  used  during  the  first 
fifteen  years  to  pay  the  premiums  upon  a  death,  accident, 
and  sickness  insurance  policy  in  one  of  the  standard  com- 
panies, covering  (in  lieu  of  employers'  liability)  the  same 
scale  of  benefits  as  are  now  provided  for  working  men  under 
the  admirable  German  Compulsory  Insurance  laws.  At  the 
end  of  the  fifteen  years  the  accumulations  of  the  employee's 
half  of  the  fund  and  interest  would  suffice  to  take  the  place 
of  the  insurance  policy,  which  could  then  be  dropped;  and 
thereafter  the  whole  fund  would  accumulate  to  provide  the 
same  benefits,  and  a  savings  fund  or  retiring  pension  at  the 
employee's  option. 

He  would,  however,  .sacrifice  all  the  accumulations  and 
the  two  and  a  half  per  cent  of  his  wages,  should  he  break 


TRADE  UNIONS  175 

his  contract  and  quit  without  notice;  or  should  he,  in  case 
of  accident  or  injury,  elect  to  abandon  his  contract  benefits, 
and  hold  his  employer  liable  under  existing  laws — a  strong 
reason  for  doing  neither. 

Would  the  men  sign  such  contracts,  offering  incompar- 
ably greater  benefits  to  themselves  and  the  community  than 
are  offered  by  existing  trade-unions,  laws,  and  charities?  If 
we  may  forecast  their  probable  action  from  the  foregoing 
statistics,  most  of  them  would.  It  is  certain,  however,  that 
no  union  man  would  do  so  if  the  present  union  leaders  could 
prevent.  Prying  capital  and  labor  apart  with  a  wedge  of 
class  hatred,  and  inserting  themselves  between,  is  now  their 
gainful,  conspicuous,  and  interesting  vocation.  Permanent, 
peaceful,  and  profitable  relations  between  employer  and  em- 
ployee would  put  them  out  of  power.  Therefore,  when  Mr. 
Taylor,  by  long  experiment,  finds  ways  for  men  to  do  vastly 
more  work  with  less  effort,  and  draw  much  more  pay,  Mr. 
Mitchell  promptly  repudiates  for  labor  the  idea  of  doing  so 
much  for  the  money.  If  Mr.  Perkins  offers  Steel  Corpora- 
tion shares  to  its  employees  on  easy  payments,  so  that  they 
may  be  directly  interested  in  its  success  and  in  the  profits 
from  their  own  toil,  Mr.  Morrison  denounces  the  offer  as 
bribery,  and  those  who  accept  it  as  traitors  to  their  class. 

So  there  you  have  the  issue  sharply  defined.  However 
sordid  the  motives  of  capital,  its  methods  have  been  enor- 
mously beneficial  to  the  race.  It  has  learned  that  human 
efficiency  means  abundance  for  human  needs,  and  abun- 
dance low  prices,  and  low  prices  larger  trade,  and  larger 
trade  greater  profits.  With  the  purely  selfish  purpose  of 
garnering  these  profits,  capital  has  for  a  century  produced 
and  supplied  to  the  race,  in  return  for  its  daily  toil,  an  ever- 
increasing  store  of  the  necessaries  and  luxuries  of  life. 

On  the  other  hand,  labor,  equally  selfish  but  less  intelli- 
gent, everywhere  and  always  fights  efficiency,  discipline, 
scientific  management;  in  short,  fights  every  means  of  in- 
creasing output  and  reducing  unit-cost.  Everywhere  and 
always,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  labor  stands  for  monopoly, 
violence,  and  coercion,  and  against  personal  independence. 
The  non-union  man  has  no  right  to  life,  libertj',  and  the 
pursuit   of  a  job.     At   the  very  moment   of   time   when  the 


176  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

world  demands  of  capital  the  utmost  commercial  freedom, 
the  widest  competition,  the  greatest  energy,  the  cheapest  and 
best  service,  labor  stands  for  the  exact  opposite, — for  tyran- 
ny, combination  in  restraint  of  trade,  high  cost,  inefficiency, 
and  sloth.  To  sum  up,  in  hauling  the  heavy  load  of  human 
existence,  it  is  the  admitted  principle  and  purpose  of  organ- 
ized labor  to  balk  and  not  to  pull. 

A  priori,  and  from  the  broad  experience,  personal  and 
national,  cited  above,  the  conclusion  comes  to  me  irresisti- 
bly, that  the  principle  is  false,  the  purpose  wrong,  and  the 
result  inevitable;  in  fine,  that  existing  trade-unionism  is  of 
no  value,  to  itself  or  to  the  community,  and  must  make  way 
for  something  better. 

Cassier's  Magazine.  23:  434-40.  January,   1903. 

Labour  Unions:  Their  Good  Features  and  Their  Evil  Ones. 
Charles  W.  Eliot. 

It  is  of  no  use  to  try  to  educate  the  children  of  a  tribe 
which  is  nomadic,  without  settlement,  without  home.  Edu- 
cation, therefore,  is  a  secondary  instrumentality,  habitual 
labour  coming  first.  Hence  the  importance  of  humane  con- 
ditions of  employment,  of  humane  conditions  of  the  daily 
labour  by  which  the  millions  are  supported, — the  daily  la- 
bour which  forms  the  groundwork  of  the  civilisation  of  the 
people. 

And  now,  what  are  humane  conditions  of  employment? 
That  is  a  question  on  which  the  experience  of  university 
men  sheds  some  light.  Naturally  enough  the  conditions  of 
university  employment  are  humane  in  all  civilised  nations. 
Indeed,  I  believe  them  to  be  the  most  humane  in  the  world. 
Now  I  am  going  to  try  to  state  what  I  think  to  be  the 
humane  conditions  of  employment,  basing  my  delineation 
on  my  own  experience  of  university  employment. 

The  first  of  these  humane  conditions  I  conceive  to  be  a 
rising  wage,  that  is,  a  wage  which  gradually, — it  need  not  be 
rapidly, — increases  with  the  labourer's  increased  experience, 
attainments  and  age.  This  condition  means  for  the  labourer 
hope,    expectancy,   recognition   of  merit,   and    gradually    in- 


TRADE  UNIONS  177 

creasing  reward  of  merit.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  rising 
wage  should  be  regarded  as  an  essential  condition  of  satis- 
factory employment. 

The  second  universally  desirable  condition  is  steady  em- 
ployment, after  adequate  probation.  I  have  never  seen  any 
hesitation  on  the  part  of  young  men  in  accepting  a  reason- 
able probation,  and  every  intelligent  person  wants  steady 
work.  Yet  that  method  of  steady  employment  after  ade- 
quate probation  can  hardly  be  said  to  exist  in  the  ordinary 
industries  of  the  civilised  nations.  It  applies  dismissal  only 
for  cause, — for  plainly  visible,  indisputable  cause.  It  also 
implies,  on  the  part  of  the  employer,  a  perfect  readiness  to 
deal  justly  and  fairly  with  complaints.  I  believe  steady  em- 
ployment to  be  the  sound  condition  for  national  human 
development  in  all  walks  of  life.  It  is  the  steady  job  which 
develops  fine  human  character,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
spasmodic  employment  is  a  very  unfavourable  condition  for 
the  development  of  character.  It  may  seem  strange  to  you 
even  to  mention  such  a  reasonable  opportunity  for  the  de- 
velopment of  character  as  steady  work  among  conditions  of 
employment.  We  certainly  are  not  accustomed  to  that  view. 
But  is  it  not,  after  all,  the  only  rational  view  of  humane 
conditions  of  employment? 

A  third  humane  condition  of  employment  I  hold  to  be 
encouragement  for  the  making  of  a  permanent  home.  That 
is  just  what  the  university  conditions  of  employment  en- 
courage. The  making  of  a  permanent  home  means  that  the 
home  creator  has  opportunity  to  form  local  attachments,  to 
evince  public  spirit,  and  to  win  for  himself  local  reputation 
among  his  neighbours.  Neighbourhood  reputation  is  the 
most  rewarding  kind  of  reputation.  These  aids  to  the  de- 
velopment of  character  and  these  sources  of  happiness  the 
normal  workman  loses  completely.  Therefore,  a  wandering, 
unattached  condition  for  labour  is  always  unhappy  and  in- 
expedient, whether  we  regard  the  interests  of  the  individual 
or  the  interests  of  society. 

Fourth,  among  humane  conditions  of  employment  I  put 
the  opportunity  to  serve  generously  and  proudly  the  estab- 
lishment or  institution  with  which  the  labourer  has  been 
connected.     That  is  a  high  privilege  for  any  human  being. 


178  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

It  takes  him  out  of  himself,  and  gives  him  a  happy  motive 
for  fidelity  and  zeal.  You  observe  that  this  opportunity  can- 
not be  had  unless  employment  is  steady  and  the  home  per- 
manent. This  is  a  satisfaction  which  all  university  men 
win.  It  is  a  delightful  part  of  the  university  man's  life,  a 
privilege  to  be  accounted  much  higher  than  large  salary  or 
any  form  of  luxurious  living.  It  is  one  of  the  deep,  per- 
manent satisfactions  of  human  life;  and  I  should  not  call 
any  conditions  of  employment  humane  which  made  that 
satisfaction  unattainable  by  the  humblest  labourer. 

The  fifth  right  condition  of  employment  is  the  pension 
on  disability.  It  gives  security  and  dignity  to  the  labourer; 
it  gives  throughout  life  relief  from  one  great  anxiety;  it 
gives  also  that  public  consideration  which  goes  with  a  steady 
job  and  self-respecting,  though  humble  or  unobserved  career. 
Now  there  are  five  conditions  of  humane  employment, 
which  I  believe  to  be  not  theoretical  or  fanciful,  but  per- 
fectly capable  of  realisation.  But  I  think  we  shall  have  to 
confess  at  once  that  these  are  not  the  common  conditions 
of  employment  in  those  large  industries  which  require  the 
services  of  multitudes  of  comparatively  unskilled  labourers. 

To-day  the  large  services  in  which  these  principles  are 
adopted  are  few  in  number.  I  remember  hearing  an  emi- 
nent railroad  president  say,  ten  years  ago,  that  there  was 
only  one  rule  on  which  railroad  service  could  be  conducted, 
and  that  was  the  rule  of  instant  dismissal.  Instant  dismis- 
sal characterises  many  employments  to  day. 

Another  serious  difficulty  with  American  employment  is 
that  it  is  spasmodic.  In  almost  all  the  large  services  it  is 
not  steady,  but  spasmodic, — first  a  rush,  and  then  an  abso- 
lute stop.  Again,  in  most  industries, — not  all,  I  am  happy 
to  say, — complaints  are  not  listened  to,  or,  if  listened  to, 
are  made  ground  for  dismissal.  That  is  profoundly  unrea- 
sonable as  a  method  of  administration,  and  is  an  abundant 
source  of  bitterness  and  discontent.  Also,  there  are  no  pen- 
sions except  in  a  few  fine  services,  which  are  beginning  to 
illustrate  the  proper  conditions  of  employment.  Moreover, 
wages  are  fluctuating.  Steadiness  of  wages,  however,  is  an 
immense  object  to  all  wage-earners. 

Under    such    circumstances,    then,    labour    unions    have 


TRADE  UNIONS  179 

grown  up  among  us.  They  have  become  more  and  more 
aggressive,  and  are  likely  to  extend  constantly  their  fields 
of  operation.  Against  them  are  arranged  the  employers, 
and  sometimes  the  non-union  men.  Whose  fault  is  this  con- 
dition of  industrial  strife?  It  is  clearly  the  fault  of  both 
parties.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  employers  may  justly 
be  held  more  accountable  than  the  employed.  On  the  whole, 
the  situation  of  the  employers  is  generally  more  com- 
fortable, their  education  superior,  their  intelligence  greater. 
Under  these  difficulties  and  with  these  justifications  labour 
unions  have  been  organised  and  have  struggled  with  more 
or  less  success  toward  their  remote  good. 

Before  I  take  up  the  points  at  which  I  find  labour  unions 
to  be  ill-advised,  let  me  admit,  as  all  persons  must  who  have 
studied  their  history,  that  the  industrial  community  as  a 
whole  is  under  many  obligations  to  the  unions.  They  have, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  mitigated  many  evils.  They  have  re- 
duced what  used  to  be  the  unreasonable  number  of  hours  in 
a  day's  work.  They  have  improved  health  conditions  in 
factories  and  mines,  and  have  procured  the  legislation  which 
has  enforced  better  health  conditions.  They  have  prevented 
young  children  from  working  in  factories,  and  they  have 
emancipated  employees  in  many  industries  from  the  com- 
pany store.  Moreover,  they  hold  in  check  combined  capi- 
tal; and  combined  capital  is,  from  the  democratic  point  of 
view,  a  formidable  oligarchy.  The  labour  unions  hold  that 
oligarchy  in  check. 

The  argument  commonly  used  in  justification  of  the  or- 
ganisations of  labourers  in  unions  is  a  sound  one, — capital 
is  effectively  combined  in  certain  industries,  and,  therefore, 
labourers  must  effectively  combine  in  those  industries.  That 
argument  is  unanswerable.  The  great  combinations  of  capi- 
tal are  very  formidable  to  unskilled  labourers — much  more 
formidable  than  to  the  average  man  in  the  community  at 
large,  and  they  are  sufficiently  formidable  to  us  all.  I  think, 
too,  that  we  all  believe  that  the  labour  union  is  going  to 
last.  The  facilities  for  uniting  multitudes  of  men  in  one 
organisation,  for  communicating  on  the  instant  with  all 
branches   of   the   organisation,  for   bringing   masses   of  men 


i8o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

together  for  a  common  purpose,  have  increased  wonderfully 
even  w^ithin  the  last  ten  years. 

In  view  of  this  situation  it  is  manifestly  important  to 
discuss  frankly  and  publicly  any  labour  upion  doctrines  or 
practices  which  seem  dangerous  to  society  or  hurtful  to  the 
men  who  adopt  them.  The  first  evil  is  the  close  limit  put 
on  the  number  of  apprentices  in  shops  or  factories  or  mines. 
This  seems  to  me  a  strange  interference  with  a  fundamental 
democratic  doctrine.  It  was  Napoleon  who  gave  it  a  very 
compact  expression: — "Every  career  is  open  to  talent."  Now 
that  is  a  fundamental  doctrine,  one  that  we  all  thought 
everyone  of  us  heartily  believed  in.  The  labour  union  un- 
dertakes to  close  the  trade  which  it  represents  from  young 
men.  It  prescribes,  for  example,  to  a  great  printing  office, 
where  hundreds  of  men  are  employed,  that  only  an  insignifi- 
cant number  of  apprentices  shall  be  allowed.  I  have  read 
many  .constitutions  of  trades  unions  and  I  have  never  failed 
to  find  in  them  this  disposition  to  limit  education  for  the 
trade.  It  seems  to  be  the  common  labour  union  doctrine 
that  the  youth  are  to  be  kept  out  of  the  trade.  It  is  the 
exclusion  of  the  newcomer  for  the  protection  of  the  old 
hand. 

I  need  not  point  out  how  inconsistent  this  is  with  all 
practices  in  higher  education.  A  group  of  eminent  lawyers, 
for  instance,  devote  themselves  to  educating  young  lawyers. 
A  group  of  dentists  devote  themselves,  at  pecuniary  sacri- 
fice, to  training  as  many  young  dentists  as  they  can  get 
together,  with  the  result  that  the  young  men  immediately 
begin  to  compete  in  practice  with  their  teachers.  All 
through  the  higher  education  runs  this  conception  of  using 
a  talent  for  teaching  to  increase  the  number  of  men  well 
taught.  It  is  the  same  spirit  which  makes  the  physician  or 
surgeon  always  give  to  the  community  any  medical  or 
surgical  discovery  he  may  have  made. 

It  is  the  disposition  among  liberally  educated  men  to  pro- 
vide every  facility  for  entrance  to  the  learned  and  scientific 
professions.  The  spirit  of  the  educated  class  is  to  further 
to  the  utmost  every  process  of  education  which  admits  to 
the  class,  while  the  spirit  of  the  labour  union   seems   to  be 


.  TRADE  UNIONS  i8i- 

the  exclusive  spirit;  it  tries  to  protect  the  possessor  of  a 
trade  against  the  new  aspirant. 

Another  pernicious  doctrine  held  by  many  unions  is  the 
doctrine  of  limiting  the  output  or  day's  product  of  the  indi- 
vidual labourer.  This  doctrine  seems  to  be  based  upon  the 
opinion  that  there  is  a  definite  amount  of  demand  for  the 
product  of  any  industry,  and  if  that  demand  is  satisfied  by  a 
portion  of  the  labourers  in  that  industry  there  must  be  an- 
other portion  who  get  no  work, — who  can  get  no  work.  If 
one  hundred  thousand  labourers  satisfy  the  demand  when 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  are  in  the  trade,  the  re- 
maining fifty  thousand  will  starve.  Generosity  teaches  that 
the  one  hundred  thousand  labourers  should  not  satisfy  that 
demand,  but  should  work  slowly, — say,  at  two-thirds  their 
natural  speed,  so  that  the  fifty  thousand  may  have  a  chance 
to  share  the  demand.  The  claim  of  the  union  is  that  the 
limitation  of  output  has  a  generous  motive, — the  motive  of 
permitting  those  that  would  otherwise  be  unemployed  to 
share  the  fixed  demand. 

I  need  not  point  out  that  the  theory  of  a  fixed  demand 
is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable;  at  any  rate,  it  cannot 
be  computed  or  demonstrated.  It  is  an  assumption  that  it 
is  impossible  to  prove.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  effect  on  the  individual  labourer  of  habitually  work- 
ing at  a  rate  below  his  natural  capacity  must  be  thoroughly 
pernicious.  What  alert,  ambitious  man  but  desires  to  make 
his  daily  output  as  large  as  possible,  no  matter  what  his 
calling?  What  must  be  the  effect  on  the  individual  labourer 
of  endeavouring,  day  after  day  and  year  after  year,  to  do 
less  than  he  might  do  in  the  appointed  hours  of  labour? 
Must  it  not  be  degrading?  Must  it  not  gradually  undermine 
his  own  capacity  for  production?  Will  he  not  become,  year 
by  year,  a  feebler  and  less  useful  man?  The  proper  ambi- 
tion for  the  labourer  in  any  calling  is  to  produce  as  much 
as  possible,  of  a  quality  as  high  as  possible;  and  no  other 
purpose  will  foster  the  development  of  the  best  workmen 
or  the  best    men. 

I  object,  therefore,  utterly,  to  the  limited  output  for  the 
individual,  because  it  fights  against  the  best  instincts  of  the 
best  labourers.     It   also,    of   course,    diminishes   the   produc- 


182  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

tiveness  of  the  entire  community,  and  tends  to  make  the 
whole  community  indifferent  and  ineffective. 

A  third  doctrine  of  labour  unions  which  seems  to  me  to 
fight  against  the  true  developing  principles  in  human  nature 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  uniform  wage.  This  uniform  wage 
works  in  two  ways:  in  the  first  place,  it  prevents  the  capable 
labourer  from  earning  as  much  as  he  might,  which  is  not 
only  a  misfortune  to  him,  but  a  misfortune  to  society;  and 
secondly,  it  is  cruel  to  the  inferior  workman.  The  labour 
union  establishes  a  uniform  wage  at  as  high  a  level  as  it 
can,  and  in  .every  trade  there  will  be  many  workmen  who 
really  are  incapable  of  earning  that  wage;  that  is,  they  can- 
not satisfy  the  employer  in  the  unionised  shop.  He  finds 
that  he  is  paying  some  of  his  men  a  wage  that  they  can 
earn,  and  others  a  wage  that  they  cannot  earn.  How  does 
he  protect  himself?  He  gets  rid,  whenever  he  can,  of  the 
labourer  that  cannot  earn  the  wage  named  by  the  union. 
The  consequence  is  that  the  inferior  workman  cannot  earn 
in  a  year  any  adequate  wage,  since  he  is  often  unemployed. 
This  is  one  of  the  greatest  cruelties  of  labour  unions.  The 
inferior  workman,  if  permitted  to  work  at  lower  wages, 
might  be  steadily  employed.  He  cannot  be  steadily  em- 
ployed when  a  wage  must  be  paid  to  him  which  he  cannot 
earn. 

There  is,  of  course,  another  aspect  of  the  uniform  wage. 
In  times  of  pressure,  which  occur  frequently  in  all  indus- 
tries, many  men  are  taken  on  at  the  union  wage  who  cannot 
earn  it,  and  the  employer  suffers  very  serious  loss  in  the 
process.  This,  however,  is  a  totally  different  aspect  of  the 
same  false  method.  The  uniform  wage,  in  short,  works 
badly  in  all  directions.  It  is  a  discouragement  to  the  capa- 
ble workman,  it  is  a  cruelty  toward  the  less  capable,  and 
from  time  to  time  it  inflicts  great  injury  on  the  employer. 

I  come  now  to  a  fourth  objection  to  the  labour  union, — 
its  teaching  in  regard  to  the  use  of  violence  during  a  strike. 
This  is  a  doctrine  which  is  not  always  avowed;  in  fact,  one 
of  the  most  serious  objections  to  the  public  utterances  of 
labour  leaders  is  that  they  endeavour  to  conceal  the  violence 
which  is  actually  resorted  to.  They  even  deny,  in  guarded 
language,   that  there   is  violence.     In   their   denial   they  use 


TRADE  UNIONS  183 

the  phrase  "overt  act,"  for  instance,  meaning  thereby  a 
public  crime,  like  killing  or  blowing  up  a  house.  Now, 
what  is  the  fact  with  regard  to  the  use  of  violence  when 
unskilled  labourers  strike?  I  say  unskilled  labourers,  be- 
cause the  unions  of  highly  skilled  labourers  have  another 
means  of  resistance.  They  can  rely,  many  a  time,  upon 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  large  supply  of  labourers  skilled 
in  their  trade;  and  they  are,  therefore,  not  obliged  to  resort 
to  violence,  or,  at  least,  they  may  avoid  resort  to  violence. 
But  that  is  not  at  all  true  of  the  union  of  unskilled  labour- 
ers. 

To  enforce  a  strike,  they  really  have  no  other  weapon 
but  violence,  and  they  all  know  it,  and  their  leaders  know  it. 
They  resort  invariably  to  violence  within  a  few  hours,  and 
nearly  every  considerable  strike  for  the  past  ten  years  has 
been  accompanied  by  violence.  The  reason  for  this  lament- 
able fact  is  that  violence  is  inevitable.  Such  strikers  have 
no  other  weapons;  I  suppose  most  of  us  have  seen  this 
with  our  own  eyes.  When  a  strike  occurs  on  a  street  rail- 
way, for  example,  there  are  always  hundreds  of  men  who 
want  to  take  the  places  of  the  men  who  have  struck.  There 
is  but  one  way  of  preventing  them  from  doing  so,  namely, 
by  violently  making  it  too  dangerous  for  them. 

These  are  but  illustrations  of  a  universal  fact.  Now, 
what  is  the  theory  on  which,,  in  labour  unions,  violence  is 
justified?  It  is  justified.  I  heard  the  theory  ingeniously 
stated  at  a  recent  meeting  of  the  Economic  Club  of  Boston, 
and  I  think  I  can  give  it  to  you  accurately.  The  labourer 
who  has  worked  in  a  factory  or  shop  for  years,  or  even 
months  only,  has  acquired  an  equitable  right  in  that  factory 
which  is  not  discharged  by  the  weekly  payment  of  his 
wages.  He  has  made  a  part  of  the  reputation  of  that  fac- 
tory and  the  reputation  of  its  product.  He  has  created  a 
part  of  the  good-will  of  that  factory.  This  claim  is  sub- 
stantial, and  it  is  not  discharged  by  paying  him  weekly 
wages. 

He  joins  his  fellows  in  declaring  that  for  a  time  they  do 
not  propose  to  continue  to  work  in  that  factory  on  the  con- 
ditions which  prevail  at  the  moment.  He  then  sees  a  man 
taking  his  place.     Now,   that  man  is   possessing  himself  of 


i84  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

that  equitable  claim  on  the  factory  of  the  right  in  equity 
which  the  former  labourer  has  acquired,  and  which  he  ought 
not  to  lose  by  going  on  a  strike.  The  incoming  man  is  a 
thief  and  a  robber,  and  he  can  be  dealt  with  as  one  deals 
with  a  burglar  in  one's  house.  The  scab,  or  strike  breaker, 
is  a  burglar,  and  if  ever  violence  is  justified  between  man 
and  man,  violence  is  justifiable  between  the  union  man  who 
has  gone  on  a  strike  and  the  scab  who  takes  his  place. 

The  argument  is  plausible,  but  has  a  fatal,  weak  spot. 
It  claims  a  right  in  the  factory  or  business  which  depends 
on  continuous  operation,  and  also  claims  the  right  to  dis- 
continue the  business  or  shut  up  the  factory. 

This  doctrine  I  believe  to  be  a  dangerous  one,  and  one 
that  combats  all  principles  with  regard  to  freedom  in  labour. 
I  find  that  the  principle  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his 
labour  at  whatever  price  he  chooses  to  fix  is  earnestly  dis- 
puted. Indeed,  it  is  said  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  sell  his 
labour  at  any  price,  without  considering  the  effects  of  his 
sale  on  associated  labourers  in  the  same  trade  or  business. 
The  right  to  earn  bread  for  his  family  by  whatever  oppor- 
tunity which  presents  itself  is  denied.  He  must  not  earn 
bread  for  his  family  without  considering  the  effects  which 
his  taking  the  price  he  is  willing  to  accept  may  have  on 
thousands  of  other  men  who  are  not  willing  to  accept  that 
price.  This  doctrine  cuts  deep,  and  the  people  have  got  to 
consider  and  reconsider  this  contest  of  opinions.  It  is  a  se- 
rious contest  of  opinions  with  regard  to  personal  liberty. 

The  sort  of  violence  which  the  labour  unions  justify  is 
various,  and  there  has  been  a  great  development  in  the  va- 
riety of  violence  within  the  last  ten  years.  The  inevitable 
violence  now  takes  the  form,  first,  of  a  few  serious  outrages 
on  persons  and  on  property.  It  does  not  take  many  outrages 
to  alarm  a  considerable  population.  Three  or  four  assaults, 
three  or  four  killings,  a  few  blown-up  houses,  will  terrorise 
a  large  community.  But  these  operations  need  not  be  nu- 
merous, they  need  not  be  frequent.  The  more  effective  meth- 
od, when  combined  with  these  assaults  and  outrages,  is  the 
method  of  the  boycott. 

I  have  not  time  to  describe  the  varieties  of  the  boycott. 
Suffice  to  say  that  the  boycott,  in  a  community  .where  the 


TRADE  UNIONS  185 

union  men  are  in  power,  penetrates  every  nook  and  corner 
of  society.  Every  shop,  every  office,  every  professional 
man's  employment  is  assailable,  and  is  assailed.  But  it  does 
not  stop  there  in  a  community  where  the  union  has  a  large 
majority.  The  police,  the  courts  and  the  newspapers  can 
all  be  controlled.  They  have  been  repeatedly,  and  they  are 
to-day,  in  some  localities.  You  see  how  much  ground  that 
covers, — the  police,  the  courts  and  the  newspapers.  The 
community  at  large  is  thus  deprived  of  information  and  the 
community  on  the  spot  is  deprived  of  the  ordinary  protec- 
tion of  the  courts  and  the  officers  of  the  courts. 

One  step  remains  to  be  taken  in  communities  where  the 
labour  unions  are  in  command,  namely,  the  control  of  the 
militia.  We  shall  probably  see  during  the  next  few  years 
strenuous  efforts,  direct  and  indirect,  on  the  part  of  the  un- 
ions to  control  the  militia.  There  are  two  ways  of  control- 
ling it, — fill  the  local  militia  with  union  men,  but  legislation 
may  also  be  resorted  to;  and,  thirdly,  the  boycott  will  be 
effective  to  this  end  unless  the  public  learns  how  to  disarm 
it.  The  formidableness  of  the  boycott,  except  in  a  region 
where  the  union  men  are  in  a  clear  minority,  is*  a  singular 
phenomenon  in  society. 

The  total  number  of  labourers  organised  in  unions  of 
the  United  States,  for  example,  cannot  possibly  be  placed 
higher  than  2,000,000.  Colonel  Wright,  head  of  the  United 
States  Labour  Bureau,  says  that  he  cannot  place  it  higher 
than  1,700,000.  It  is,  therefore,  conceivable  that  the  more 
numerous  non-union  men,  or  the  public  at  large,  should 
learn  how  to  control  or  defeat  the  boycott.  It  needs  to'  be 
defeated.  It  is  a  cruel,  cowardly  interference  with  the  rights 
of  all  the  people. 

Discussion  of  evils  seems  to  me  seldom  expedient,  un- 
less it  leads  to  the  discussion  of  remedies.  Now,  there  are 
certain  hopeful  prognostications  for  industrial  peace.  In  the 
first  place,  whenever  either  party  to  the  combat  gives  a 
demonstration  of  unreasonableness  and  folly,  that  party  pro- 
motes the  adoption  of  policies  which  are  more  rational,  and 
we  had  that  demonstration  to  perfection  from  both  sides 
during  the  recent  five  months'  American  anthracite  coal 
strike. 


i86  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

When  we  reflect  upon  it,  does  it  not  seem  wonderful 
that  at  the  end  of  this  strife  about  mining  anthracite,  which 
in  bitterness  exceeded  the  bitterness  of  many  wars,  in  which 
measures  were  proposed  and  attempted  to  be  executed  which 
in  actual  warfare  people  generally  abstain  from, — as,  for  in- 
stance, the  endeavour  of  the  miners  to  force  out  of  the 
mines  the  engineers  who  kept  the  mines  free  from  water, 
while  throughout  the  Transvaal  war,  surely  a  bitter  strife 
and  a  prolonged  one,  that  operation  was  never  resorted  to 
or  even  proposed  by  either  party, — isn't  it  wonderful,  I  say, 
that  at  the  end  of  five  months  of  this  extraordinary  turmoil, 
this  infliction  of  perfectly  unnecessary  losses  upon  the  en- 
tire community,  and  especially  on  both  combatants,  we 
should  arrive  at  a  solution  which  might  just  as  well  have 
been  arrived  at  before  the  strike  began?  This  is  a  demon- 
stration, I  think,  of  a  gross  lack  of  intelligence  in  both  par- 
ties to  the  strife. 

At  the  end  of  five  months  an  arbitration  commission  was 
appointed, — certainly  no  better  than  the  two  parties  could 
have  selected  at  the  beginning.  Such  irrational  conduct  on 
both  sides  should  teach  the  public  that  this  sort  of  industrial 
strife  is  stupid,  and,  therefore,  to  be  avoided  by  more  in- 
telligent policies  and  efforts.  It  teaches  that  it  is  better  to 
confer  at  the  start  than  to  fight  first  and  confer  afterwards. 

The  incorporation  of  unions  is,  of  course,  very  desirable, 
because  arbitration  between  one  body  which  is  incorporated 
and  another  bodj'  which  is  not  incorporated  is  not  perfectly 
fain  A  penalty  can  be  enforced  against  one  and  not  against 
the  other.  But  all  the  labour  unions  and  all  the  labour 
leaders,  as  far  as  I  know,  are  opposed  to  incorporation. 
They  dread  the  action  of  the  courts.  They  have  had  many 
quarrels  with  the  courts,  and  have  often  been  defeated  in 
them,  and  they  have  a  natural  dread  of  litigation.  The  well- 
kept  agreements  between  incorporated  bodies  on  the  one 
hand  and  unincorporated  labour  unions  on  the  other  are  all 
the  more  interesting  because  they  may  prove  to  be  the 
means  of  gradually  bringing  about  the  incorporation  of  .un- 
ions when,  by  experience  under  these  present  agreements, 
the  unions  learn   to  trust  to  a  contract.    When  that  trust 


TRADE  UNIONS  187 

has  once  been  created,  the  unions  may  cease  to  fear  a  con- 
tract enforced  by  the  ordinary  legal  methods. 

Lastly,  I  think  there  are  many  signs  in  important  manu- 
factures that  labour  unions  can,  by  good  judgment  and  good 
feeling,  make  themselves  a  convenience  to  corporations  en- 
gaged in  industrial  work.'  I  have  lately  had  conversations 
with  some  large  employers  of  labour  who  perceive  the  con- 
venience in  large  industries  of  being  able  to  procure  the 
assured  delivery  at  a  fixed  price  of  any  required  number  of 
labourers  on  a  contract  covering  a  year  or  five  years.  It  is 
interesting  to  perceive  that  the  urgencies  of  great  business 
seem  to  tend  already  to  methods  which  have  been  developed 
in  the  course  of  centuries  in  old  China.  The  Chinese  meth- 
od is  the  delivery  of  any  required  number  of  labourers  by  a 
company  for  a  fixed  price.  In  some  respects  there  is  a 
curious  resemblance  between  the  common  Chinese  method 
and  the  method  toward  which  the  labour  union  tends.  The 
union  labourer  of  the  future,  once  involved  by  the  thousand, 
may  be  hardly  freer  than  the  Chinese  labourer,  who  is  de- 
livered to  order  by '  the  thousand  at  an  agreed  price.  All 
the  more  important  is  it  that  joining  the  union  should  be 
completely  voluntary. 

The  first  thing  needed  in  every  labour  trouble  is  to  learn 
exactly  what  the  difficulties  are,  and  here  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  there  are  obstacles.  Both  parties  to  industrial 
strife  as  a  rule  distrust  publicity.  It  is  a  general  fact  that 
corporations  wish  to  conceal  their  methods  of  doing  busi- 
ness, and  that  labour  unions  also  wish  to  conceal  their  rea- 
sons for  demanding  more  pay  or  less  work.  Therefore,  the 
meaning  of  procuring  publicity  in  regard  to  such  matters 
ought  to  be  diligently  sought  by  the  people  as  a  whole. 

We  have  many  means  of  publicity.  The  local  newspaper 
will  not  serve  us.  The  great  metropolitan  newspaper  might, 
the  magazines  might,  legislative  comgiissions  might.  They 
do  not  always,  but  they  might.  It  is  for  the  people  to  seek 
thorough  information  on  all  these  industrial  struggles,  and 
to  spread  abroad  among  the  people  sound  notions  concern- 
ing their  causes  and  their  results.  Then,  I  think,  we  may 
all  hope  that  we  shall  find  a  way  through  these  formidable 
social  dangers. 


i88  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Century.  67:  298-304.  December,  1903. 
Daily  Walk  of  the  Walking  Delegate.     Franklin  Clarkin. 

The  First  Walking  Delegate 

In  an  old  "American^  Federationist"  you  may  read  how 
the  first  walking  delegate  came  into  being.  He  was  James 
Lynch  of  New  York.  He  himself  tells  of  learning  his  trade 
as  carpenter  with  his  father,  and  of  joining  a  union  in  1872. 
Hard  times  drifted  him  West.  Seven  years  later,  prosper- 
ity returning,  he  was  back  in  New  York,  serving  on  the 
executive  committee  of  the  carpenters,  and  lobbying  at 
Albany,  under  pay,  for  new  labor  legislation.  That  was  the 
time  when  all  New  York  wanted  "brownstone  fronts."  Much 
of  the  work  was  being  sublet,  or  "lumped."  Builders  would 
undertake  a  block  of  houses  seven  hundred  feet  long.  They 
would  give  the  setting  of  door-frames  to  one  lot  of  carpen- 
ters, and'the  making  of  casings  to  another,  which  led.  Lynch 
relates,  "to  special  classes  of  workmen  known  as  'door- 
hangers,'  etc.  These  men  were  outside  the  union  and 
worked  all  sorts  of  hours." 

Their  offense  is  not  clear:  doing  piecework,  probably, 
for  piece-work  means  that  a  worker  is  paid  for  what  he  does. 
He  may  be  so  deft  that  he  can  do  twice  as  much  as  the 
dull  or  lazy  fellow  at  his  elbow,  and  earn  double  the  wages; 
or  so  ambitious  for  a  stouter  pay-envelop  at  the  end  of  the 
week  that  he  works  as  long  as  he  pleases  in  a  day.  This 
ever  has  been  intolerable  to  unionism,  which  uses  the  daw- 
dler to  set  the  pace,  so  that  in  the  long  run  more  men  shall 
be  required,  and  wages  made  the  same  for  "those  who  do 
well  and  wisely  as  for  those  who  do  ill  and  foolishly."  I 
must  add  that  the  intention  is  to  take  care  of  the  man  of 
less  capability.  * 

"In  desperation,"  writes  the  first  walking  delegate,  "it 
was  decided  to  pay  a  representative  to  keep  after  these 
men;  so  in  July,  1883,  a  walking  delegate  of  carpenters  was 
authorized,  and  I  was  appointed." 

Neither  the  carpenters  nor  the  builders  welcomed  his 
advent.  "I  found  the  position,"  he  abruptly  concludes,  "any- 
thing but   pleasant.     Although   of   a   peaceful   disposition,    I 


TRADE  UNIONS  189 

was  plunged  into  continual  war.  My  presence  on  a  job  was 
an  irritation  to  the  employer  as  well  as  to  the  non-union 
men,  and  not  infrequently  some  of  the  union  men  envied 
me,  little  knowing  the  sorrows  of  my  lot." 

Sam  Parks's  Methods 

Parks  of  the  Housesmiths'  Union,  in  boastings,  testi- 
monies, and  interviews,  has  told  of  some  of  the  distresses  of 
the  present-day  walking  delegate.  Parks  has  the  notion  of 
some  practical  politicians,  that  to  gain  ascendancy  among 
men  you  must  show  yourself  able  to  give  hard  knocks.  He 
early  learned  to  fight,  in  logging-camps,  on  the  lake  boats, 
along  the  docks,  on  the  railroads,  in  construction  camps. 
"I  like  to  fight,"  he  declares.  "It  is  nothing  after  you've 
risked  your  life  bridge-riveting  at  three  dollars  a  day.  In 
organizing  men  in  New  York  I  talked  with  them  at  first 
nice  and  pleasant,  explaining  how  they  could  be  better  off 
in  a  union.  Bosses  began  to  learn  that  I  was  about  and 
pretty  busy;  and  they  had  men  stationed  around  to  'do'  me. 
But  they  could  not  keep  me  off  a  job.  I  sneaked  up  ladders 
and  elevator-shafts,  stole  up  on  beams,  waited  for  the  men 
on  cellar  doors  where  tH"ey  ate  dinner.  Some  did  not  be- 
lieve unions  would  be  good  for  them;  and  I  gave  tHem  a 
belt  on  the  jaw.  That  changed  their  minds.  Lots  of  men 
can't  be  moved  by  any  other  argument." 

He  could  not  hold  members  in  the  union  by  the  same 
primitive  method.  Convinced  against  their  wills,  they  were 
impatient  for  promised  benefits.  So  when  his  organization 
was  strong  enough  to  "keep  scabs  off  the  jobs,"  Parks  com- 
pelled contractors,  one  at  a  time,  to  "recognize"  and  have 
dealings  with  the  organization  he  had  produced.  He  made 
it  a  point  to  learn  when  they  were  under  bonds  to  complete 
their  undertakings  within  a  certain  time.  Then,  as  he  says,  to 
keep  men  contentedly  paying  dues  to  his  union,  he  would 
make  a  demand  for  increase  of  wages.  "Contractors  would 
refuse,  and  I  would  order  out  the  workers.  We  would  win. 
This  year  the  scale  was  fixed  at  four  dollars  and  a  half  a 
day,  which  is  half  a  dollar  more  than  I  promised.  We  are 
going  to  get  five  dollars,  and  then  we'll  stop.  Capital  has 
some  rights." 


190  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Reluctant  as  they  had  been  to  join,  members  became 
tolerant  of  Parks  and  his  union,  and  now  when  you  marvel 
how  they  can  put  up  with  a  walking  delegate  like  him,  con- 
victed of  obtaining  money  by  selling  out  a  strike,  they 
answer:  "He  brought  us  four  dollars  and  a  half  a  day  in- 
stead of  two,  and  if  he  'soaked'  the  bosses  for  his  own  poc- 
ket, why,  it  doesn't  come  out  of  us." 

Parks's  union  was  a  machine.  A  membership  of  three 
thousand  sent  scarcely  sixty  to  the  meetings,  and  there  was 
nothing  in  the  constitution  which  said  that  a  convicted 
blackmailer  should  not  boss  it. 

"Nothing  in  our  constitution  or  by-laws,"  said  a  respons- 
ible labor  leader  to  me,  "prohibits  a  pickpocket  from  being 
a  walking  delegate  or  a  walking  delegate  from  being  a 
pickpocket.  If  he  is  caught  picking  pockets,  it  is  the  busi- 
ness of  constables  and  courts  to  deal  with  and  punish  him — 
not  ours.  All  we  ask  is  that  he  shall  get  us  more  pay  for 
less  work." 

The  Rule  of  Personal  Caprice 

The  easiest  of  all  the  walking  delegate's  shortcomings,  to 
illustrate  by  anecdote,  is  that  arbitrariness,  fickleness,  of 
preference,  enforcement  of  mere  personal  caprice,  which  em- 
ployers oftenest  complain  of.  Indeed,  there  is  something 
of  his  most  objectionable  principle  of  rule  in  nearly  every 
account  of  his  actual  doings.  This  makes  it  difficult  to 
separate  distinctly  the  faults  of  the  walking  delegate  from 
the  faults  of  the  union,  since  he  is  the  approved  embodiment 
of  its  policy.  Seldom  is  he  unable  to  gain  formal  sanction 
for  his  most  self-willed  exploits.  Witness  the  recent  hap- 
pening in   the    cap-factory   of    R Brothers,    New    York, 

where  this  supervisor  of  union  affairs  fined  a  cutter  twenty- 
five  dollars  for  using  a  knife  that  was  longer  than  the  union 
permits.  "Why  punish  him  so  severely?"  inquired  a  man 
at  the  next  bench.  "Shut  your  mouth,"  returned  the  dele- 
gate. "As  a  union  man,  I  am  entitled  to  an  answer,"  in- 
sisted the  other.  At  that  the  delegate  petulantly  called  all 
the  unionists  out  of  the  shop  until  the  inquisitive  cutter  had 
been    dismissed.     The    manufacturers    asked    the    delegate: 


TRADE  UNIONS  191 

"Why  must  this  man  leave  our  employ?"  And  he  replied: 
"Because  I  don't  want  to  see  his  face  again." 

Two  of  the  foremost  New  York  architects  were  troubled 
for  some  time  to  discover  why,  without  any  warning,  one  of 
their  buildings  had  been  "struck."  No  one  seemed  to  know. 
"One  day,"  they  relate,  "a  subcontractor  came  in.  'If  you 
want  to  settle  that  strike,'  he  said,  'I'll  tell  you  how.'  'Go 
ahead,'  we  replied.  'Break  your  contract  with  Smith,  who 
is  to  do  the  painting.'  'But  we  have  no  contract  with  him; 
we've  merely  talked  with  him  about  taking  this  job;  and, 
anyway,  his  part  would  not  come  for  six  months  yet.' 
'Never  mind;  it's  because  a  walking  delegate  heard  you  had 
a  contract  with  him  that  he  complained  and  had  all  the  men 
quit.'  'What  led  him  to  complain?'  'Why,  if  you  really  had 
contracted  with  that  painter  it  would  mean  that  he  would 
employ  a  decorator  that  the  walking  delegate  had  a  grudge 
against.' " 

The  Whitehall  Building  in  Battery  Place  was  nearly  com- 
pleted when  the  superintendent  hired  an  ordinary  union 
plumber.  The  walking  delegate  called  a  plumbers'  strike 
because  the  master  plumber  had  not  been  asked  to  hire  the 
man.  After  a  week  a  demand  was  made  for  the  discharge  of 
the  workman  so  irregularly  engaged,  and  also  for  "waiting 
time"  for  all  the  men  who  had  struck.  The  plumber  was 
presently  discharged;  but  the  builder  hesitated  at  paying 
waiting  time.  Then  all  the  men  on  the  building,  of  all 
trades,  were  ordered  out.  Weeks  of  bargaining  brought  a 
proposal  that  the  owners  of  the  building  should  bind  them- 
selves and  their  "heirs  and  assigns"  never  to  employ  in  that 
building  any  plumbers  except  through  a  master  plumber! 
This  the  owners  rejected.  Then  came  another  proposition. 
It  was  that  the  owners  should  purchase  all  the  required 
marble  basins  from  a  certain  man  at  seventy  dollars  each. 
To  this  they  agreed,  although  they  could  have  obtained  the 
same  basins  elsewhere  at  fifty  dollars.  Following  this  came 
dickering  about  other  equipment,  until  the  distracted  owners 
determined  to  put  in  no  basins  at  all. 

Overlapping  Jurisdiction 

President  Gompers  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  has 
cautioned  his  subordinates  that  "the  danger  which  above  all 


192  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

others  threatens  not  only  the  success  but  the  very  existence 
of  the  Federation  is  the  question  of  jurisdiction."  Now  and 
then  one  union  absorbs  another  to  do  away  with  conflict, 
but  the  walking  delegate  continues  to  figure  in  such  inci- 
dents as  these: 

Some  electricians,  union  men,  were  drilling  holes  in  an 
iron  elevator-frame  to  affix  lighting-wires.  Discovered  by 
a  walking  delegate  of  the  Inside  Iron  Workers,  a  complaint 
was  presented  that  this  was  not  permissible.  .  So,  to  avoid 
trouble,  the  man  responsible  for  the  construction  said:  "All 
right;  let  the  inside  iron-workers  do  it.  What  do  I  care?'' 
The  inside  iron-workers  came;  but  all  they  did  was  to  stand 
about  while  the  electricians  completed  the  task,  and  the  only 
difference  was  that  two  sets  of  workmen  drew  pay  for  the 
same  job. 

In  Pittsburg  a  builder,  delayed,  but  at  last  successful, 
in  finding  the  proper  workmen  to  remove  from  the  rain 
some  delicate  bricks  intended  for  indoor  decoration,  anxious- 
ly began  himself  to  help  them.  He  was  interrupted  by  a 
walking  delegate,  and  warned  that  if  he  did  not  stop  doing 
such  work  himself  a  strike  would  be  ordered  on  his  whole 
building.  "It  was,"  remarked  the  builder  afterward,  "as  if 
a  farmer,  trying  to  get  his  hay  under  shelter  from  a  coming 
shower,  had  been  informed  that  if  he  touched  a  finger  to  a 
rake  he  would  be  deprived  of  all  farm-hands  for  the  haying 
season  I" 

On  a  recent  Friday  a  New  York  builder  prepared  to  lay 
some  cement  so  that  it  should  solidify  by  Monday,  and  as 
the  mason's  laborers,  who  usually  do  such  work,  were  busy, 
he  got  the  excavators  to  help  him  out,  "A  walking  dele- 
gate came  along,"  he  relates,  "and  gave  the  whistle.  All 
the  men  went  out.  It  cost  me  seventy-five  dollars  to  set- 
tle." Another  contractor  wanted  to  run  a  temporary  pipe 
on  a  building  so  that  the  plasterers  who  were  at  work  could 
get  water  on  each  floor.  "I  told  the  elevator  man  to  put  up 
the  pipe  or  get  the  hoisting  man  to  do  it.  After  a  while  he 
called  me  up  on  the  telephone:  'If  I  do  that,  the  plumbers 
will  go  out.'  I  answered,  'Then  for  the  sake  of  peace,  let 
the  plumbers  do  it.'  Presently  I  received  a  message  to  the 
effect  that  if  the  plumbers  did  it,  the  steam-fitters  would 
strike!" 


TRADE  UNIONS  193 

Agaitist  Arbitration 

Last  year's  experience  having  shown  that  unions  could 
not  be  trusted  to  keep  agreements,  a  Rochester  packing- 
house declined  to  sign  a  new  one  unless  the  unions  would 
execute  a  bond  for  faithful  observance.  There  was  still  in 
force  a  contract  with  the  sausage-makers,  but  next  day 
these  men  were  ordered  by  the  walking  delegate  not  to 
report  for  work.  That  violation  of  contract  strengthened 
the  company  in  their  purpose;  they  would  pay  union  wages 
and  observe  union  rules,  but  they  would  not  sign  an  instru- 
ment which  bound  only  the  party  of  the  first  part.  They 
put  new  men  in  the  strikers'  place,  and  presently,  as  in  so 
many  strikes  where  the  sullen,  unimproved  intelligence  of 
the  walking  delegate  is  the  directing  and  obstinate  power, 
and.  failure  means  the  dissolution  of  his  machine,  the  butch- 
ers' delegate  proposed  that  all  the  men  be  taken  back,  the 
agreement  signed,  and  then,  he  promised,  "the  company 
would  be  allowed  to  discharge  them  all  the  following  day." 
The  object  was  to  have  a  victory  for  the  walking  delegate 
announced.  He  must  win,  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  his  poor 
followers. 

Agreements  to  arbitrate  are  an  incentive  to  disturbance, 
for  the  walking  delegate  has  been  surprised  to  find  that 
arbitration  does  not  mean  that  his  side  will  invariably  be 
favored  in  the  decision.  Investigation  may  reveal  that, 
instead  of  higher  wages,  the  condition  of  a  business  may 
rather  urge  a  recommendation  that  wages  be  reduced.  It 
has  ended  in  that  unexpected  manner  several  times.  More- 
over, the  walking  delegate  becomes  somewhat  superfluous 
after  it  has  been  agreed  that  a  selected  board  shall  deter- 
mine the  equities  between  employers  and  employed. 

Of  many  authenticated  records  at  hand  of  the  calling  of 
strikes  in  violation  of  signed  engagements,  it  is  necessary  to 
cite  but  one.  C &  Sons,  a  firm  of  pipe-makers  of  Chi- 
cago, dismissed  a  pipe-cutter  because,  on  command  of  a 
walking  delegate,  he  suddenly  refused  to  go  on  with  work 
he  had  been  doing  for  more  than  union  wages.  They  dis- 
missed him  because  while  in  their  pay  he  took  orders  from 
an  outsider.     The  walking  delegate  asked  that  the  man  be 


194  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

taken  upon  the  pay-roll  again.  "We  will  leave  it  to  arbi- 
trators," conceded  the  firm. 

"To  with  arbitration!"  exclaimed  the  delegate. 

"You  forget  we  have  a  signed  agreement  with  the  union 
to  settle  disputes  that  way." 

"Agreement  be  !   I  won't  refer  this  to  a  committee. 

It  will  be  settled  right  now,  with  me.  I'll  call  your  men 
out  at  once."     He  did;  and  they  went. 

Above  Courts  and  the  Union 

T Brothers    threw   a   walking    delegate    out    of    their 

Chicago*  office,  with  interesting  consequences.  When  ex- 
Mayor  Pagan  of  Hoboken  knocked  one  down  in  his  mill-yard 
for  "making  trouble  among  men  on  strike,"  a  suit  for  three 
hundred  dollars'  damages  was  brought  in  the  criminal  court, 
and  Mr.  Fagan  was  required  to  pay  the  doctor's  bill  and  the 
delegate's  loss  of  time — forty-seven  dollars  altogether.     But 

in  the  matter  of  T Brothers  the  union  set  itself  up  as 

court,  imposed  a  "fine"  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  on 
the  firm,  and  adjudged  that  they  must  give  bond  in  another 
one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  to  be  deposited  with  the 
union,  that  they  would  keep  the  peace.  The  details  are  of 
some  importance:  the  delegate  had  been  thrust  through  the 
office  door  because  he  was  recognized  as  an  anarchist,  not 
as  a  trade-unionist.  He  returned,  took  oflf  his  spectacles, 
bristled  for  a  fight,  and  was  again  put  out.  His  companion, 
who  really  represented  the  unions  which  had  to  do  with  that 
shop,  and  who  was  listened  to,  called-  a  strike,  and  after- 
wards got  the  union  to  impose  the  fine  and  bond. 

"We  won't  pay  money,"  answered  one  of  the  partners, 
"but  we  will  let  Gompers  decide  between  us." 

The  Federation's  president  advised  a  note  "expressing 
regret"  and  "promising  to  accord  the  usual  privileges  and 
courtesies"  thereafter.  In  precisely  his  terms  the  partners 
wrote  a  letter,  and  with  a  committee  of  the  union  signed  an 
agreement  as  to  hours,  wages,  etc.  Scarcely  had  it  been 
signed  before  the  walking  delegate,  holding  himself  superior 
to  his  union,  repudiated  it.  and  the  strike  remained  in  force. 
He  seemed  to  need  to  be  disciplined,  but  Gompers  said  he 
could  not  undertake  it;  so  T Brothers  immediately  sum- 


TRADE  UNIONS  I95 

moned  non-union  workers,  re-opened  the  shop,  and  are  now 
peaceably  operating  it,  with  no  walking  delegate  at  liberty 
to  enter. 

Betrayal  of  the  IVorkingtnan 

The  walking  delegate  has  more  methods  of  selling  out 
workingmen  than  the  social  reformer  has  of  insuring  them 
advancement.  ' 

It  must  be  known  to  many  persons  besides  the  District 
Attorney  of  the  County  of  New  York  how  the  construction 
of  the  house  of  a  prominent  Fifth  Avenue  club  was  delayed. 
Mr.  Jerome  found  that  seventeen  thousand  dollars  had  to 
be  paid  to  lift  the  ban  upon  its  progress.  The  Brotherhood 
of  Painters  and  Decorators,  which  had  ordered  operations  to 
stop,  had  no  membership  in  the  Building  Trades  (walking 
delegates')  Council.  Five  members  of  that  council  are  sup- 
posed to  have  shared  the  seventeen  thousand  dollars;  at  any 
rate,  the  Brotherhood  of  Painters  and  Decorators  suddenly 
became  entitled  to  representation,  and  that  central  power 
immediately  was  persuaded  that  the  erection  of  the  club 
building  should  go  on. 

In  the  recent  trial  which  resulted  in  the  conviction  of 
Sam  Parks  of  extortion,  a  Jersey  City  employer  named 
Plenty  testified  that  he  went  to  Parks's  house  to  see  if 
there  was  a  way  to  settle  his  strike.     Said  Parks: 

"Yes,  in  a  business  way.  That's  the  way  all  strikes  are 
settled.     What's  the  size  of  your  contract?" 

It  was  five  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  which  gave  a 
clue  to  the  proper  charge  to  make,  and  Parks  fixed  on  two 
hundred  dollars,  adding:  "I  have  settled  a  big  thing  to- 
day, and  this  is  my  share,"  and  he  pulled  out  a  roll  with  a 
five-hundred-dollar  gold  certificate  for  a  wrapper.  In  the 
back  room  of  a  saloon  Parks  was  handed  a  check. 

"You  do  not  expect  me  to  put  my  name  on  the  back  of 
that,  do  you?     Where's  the  money?" 

Cash  for  the  check  was  obtained  "at  Lynch's  saloon." 
Parks  put  twenty-five  dollars  in  one  pocket,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five  dollars  in  another,  and  then  called  in 
the  delegate  whose  special  beat  was  Jersey  City.  Pointing 
his  thumb  toward  Mr.  Plenty,  the  employer,  he  commanded: 


196  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

"Now,  you  let  Plenty  alone,  and  we'll  take  care  of  you." 

In  the  building  trades  it  has  not  been  unusual  to  "take 
care  of  all  walking  delegates.  One  of  them  arrives  at  a 
unionized  uncompleted  structure,  and  being  privileged  to 
enter  and  consult  each  man,  finds,  perhaps,  that  a  plasterer 
has  no  card.  The  delegate  looks  up  the  builder,  and  he, 
eager  to  complete  his  contract  on  time,  proposes  that  the 
non-union  plasterer  be  made  union.  "Initiate  him  now,"  he 
continues;  "I'll  pay  his  fee."  The  builder  passes  ten  dol- 
lars to  the  delegate, — for  his  courtesy, — and  the  non-union 
plasterer  is  safely  unionized,  and  the  fee  does  not  necessari- 
ly go  to  the  union.  Another  builder  intercepts  the  delegate 
before  he  has  passed  among  the  men,  hails  him  jovially, 
and  takes  him  around  the  corner  for  a  drink.  "This  build- 
ing is  all  right,"  he  assures  the  artless  one,  slipping  a  bank- 
note to  a  ready  palm;  and  the  act  betokens  such  a  decent 
sort  of  employer  that  the  delegate  cannot  doubt  his  word. 

Of  a  more  downright  kind  was  the  Pittsburg  tile-manu- 
facturer, secretary  of  the  Builders'  Exchange  League,  of 
whom  a  walking  delegate  requested  a  private  interview. 

"You  are  employing  a  non-union  man,"  opened  the  dele- 
gate. 

The  tilemaker  hesitated,  "Come  down  to  business,"  said 
he. 

"I've  been  to  some  expense  to  go  out  to  see  whether  the 
complaint  had  any  foundation." 

"How  much  expense?" 

"Fifty  dollars." 

"Much  as  that?  Don't  you  know  that  you  can't  get  a 
bribe  out  of  me?" 

"There's  no  bribe  about  it.  That's  what  you  owe  the 
union." 

"I  intend  to  go  on  owing  it;  but  I'll  first  get  a  formal 
statement  of  account." 

It  was  found  that  the  union  had  not  been  consulted; 
that  no  report  had  been  made  of  it;  and  at  a  disurbed  meet- 
ign  the  delegate  was  rebuked  (but  not  dismissed). 

"I'll  fix  you  tor  that,"  he  threatened  the  tilemaker. 

"Not  if  I  see  you  first,"  was  the  response. 

"Anyway,  I'll  put  you  out  of  business!" 


TRADE  UNIONS  197 

Where  the  Money  Goes 

Union  by-laws  and  constitutions  do  not  divulge  the  walk- 
ing delegate  as  he  is.  His  activities,  according  to  these, 
are  such  benign  ones  as  finding  work  for  the  idle,  revealing 
injustices,  pleading  with  employers  to  be  kind,  carrying 
benefits  to  the  sick,  providing  decent  burial  for  the  dead — 
in  short,  to  wipe  every  tear  from  every  eye.  What  they 
really  are  may  be  discerned  in  what  those  who  deal  with  him 
are  willing,  in  fearless  moments,  to  tell  about  the  things  he 
does  in  his  daily  walk,  and  best  perhaps  in  what  the  courts 
reveal. 

"'What  right  had  you  to  demand  the  ten  thousand  dollars 
from  Colonel  Baird  and  the  Brooklyn  employers?"  Donald 
Call,  walking  delegate,  was  asked  on  the  witness  stand.  He 
answered: 

''It  was  to  pay  for  the  expenses  of  the  strike  in  1894." 

"For  a  strike  eight  years  back?"' 

"Yes." 

"You  testified  that  you  first  demanded  fifty  thousand  dol- 
lars." 

"Oh,  that  was  only  a  bluff." 

"Has  your  union  been  in  the  habit  of  making  these  col- 
lections?" 

"Yes;  it  is  done  by  all  unions." 

"Now  tell  me  this:  What  did  you  men  offer  in  return  for 
this  ten  thousand  dollars?" 

"We  were  going  to  unionize  the  employers'  shops." 

It  was  brought  out  subsequently  that  the  money  was  de- 
posited in  shares  to  the  personal  accounts  of  six  walking 
delegates  and  leaders.  It  has  been  disclosed  by  various 
actions  that  to  have  the  power  to  order  strikes  or  recom- 
mend boycotts  is  a  means  of  easy  gain. 

Conspiracy   With  Employers 

After  unionizing  a  trade,  the  walking  delegate  often  en- 
ters into  negotiations  with  the  contractors,  and  together 
they  form  a  coalition  for  mutual  profit.  Every  one  knows 
that  in  several  parts  of  the  country  brickmakers  and  brick- 
layers   are   in    close    touch.     Five    months    ago   an    "outside" 


198  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

firm  took  a  contract  for  the  work  on  a  grain-elevator  near 
South  Chicago.  When  they  went  to  purchase  the  tiling 
from  members  of  the  brickmakers'  combination,  none  would 
sell  to  them.  They  went  to  an  Indiana  tile-works  and  got 
what  they  wanted;  but  when  the  tiling  arrived  in  Chicago, 
and  they  had  men  well  started  on  the  construction,  a  walk- 
ing delegate  appeared  and  told  the  layers  that  they  must 
quit,  as  there  was  an  understanding  with  the  brickmakers' 
association  that  labor  should  not  be  done  for  "outsiders." 

In  New  York  and  Chicago  there  have  been  such  checking 
and  balancing  of  greedy  knaveries  that,  unless  one  admits 
the  mercenary  singleness  of  the  interest  which  nine  tenths 
of  unionists  sustain  toward  their  organization,  the  acts 
would  be  past  understanding,  Chicago  originated  the  variety 
of  "trade  agreement"  which  engages  unions  on  one  side  and 
combinations  of  employers  on  the  other  to  act  exclusively  to 
each  other's  advantage  against  the  employers  outside  the 
pool  and  the  workingmen  outside  the  unions,  directly  in  col- 
lusion against  the  public.  Labor-capital  rings  kept  unions 
small  and  manageable,  deprived  outsiders  of  workmen, 
sometimes  drove  them  by  strikes  and  boycotts  and  other 
harassments  out  of  business  entirely,  which  left  the  com- 
bination able  to  pay  increased  wages,  and  perquisites  to 
leaders,  because  it  could  conspire  to  kite  prices  and  thus 
"take  it  all  out  of  the  customer." 

W F was    awarded    sixteen    sewer    construction 

contracts  by  the  city  of  Chicago,  involving  one  hundred  and 
ten  thousand  dollars.  Advised  that  he  ought  to  belong 
to  the  Sewer  Contractors'  Association,  which  was  favored 
by  the  walking  delegate,  he  sought  admission.  The  con- 
tractors informed  him  he  must  first  pay  one  thousand 
dollars'  fine  for  having  presumed  to  look  for  business  before 
he  had  joined  the  association.  He  declined  to  pay  the  pen- 
alty; then  a  walking  delegate  gave  aid  against  him  by  refus- 
ing to  allow  unionists  to  work  for  him  unless  he  paid  the 

contractors'   fine.     Non-union    bricklayers   being    few,   F 

had  to  default  on  his  contracts  with  the  municipality  and 
leave  Chicago.  Under  a  re-advertisement  for  bids,  the  com- 
bination got  the  contracts,  and  the  city  paid  a  higher  price. 


TRADE   UNIONS  199 

Alienation  of  Public  Sympathy 

In  various  parts  of  the  country,  misgiving  expresses  itself 
about  disclosures  of  the  walking  delegate's  pursuits.  Vicks- 
burg  compelled  one  to  extend  his  walk  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  town,  unretraceably,  for  .inducing  a  street-car  strike  and 
forming  negroes  into  bands  with  a  secret  oath,  and  causing 
servants  to  assert  that  their  "society  rules"  forbade  them  to 
begin  work  before  eight  or  continue  after  four  o'clock.  A 
committee  called  upon  the  walking  delegate  and  ordered 
him  to  leave  town.  He  appealed  to  the  mayor,  and  met  an 
uncompromising  request  that  the  command  to  depart  be 
complied  with  in  the   interest   of  order. 

Birmingham  made  a  similar  demonstration,  and  at  Idaho 
Springs,  after  union  miners  had  dynamited  Sun  and  Moon 
mine  buildings,  the  Citizens'  Alliance  expelled  fourteen 
unionists  from  the  community.  At  Cripple  Creek  working- 
men  themselves  served  notice  upon  the  walking  delegates 
who  had  come  down  from  Montana  to  unionize  the  mines 
that  they  must  "quit  the  camp,"  and  the  union's  president 
was  put  in  jail  for  carrying  concealed  weapons.  Injury  al- 
ready had  been  done  to  the  town:  twenty-five  thousand 
dollars  a  daji  had  been  withdrawn  from  circulation;  credit 
was  stopped  at  the  stores;  prices  were  cut;  leases  were  can- 
celed; and  an  idle  winter  lay  ahead — all  for  a  sympathetic 
strike  demanded  by  the  walking  delegates  from  another 
mining  region.  It  is  considered  more  effective  to  have  the 
walking  delegate  a  stranger  to  the  field  of  his  proposed  op- 
erations, perhaps  on  the  principle  of  Cartouche,  who  had 
more  success  where  he  was  still  a  romance  than  in  places 
where  the  people  had  had  experience  of  him  that  was  with- 
out glamor. 

Change  in  Name 

After  twenty  years  the  walking  delegate  has  come  to  his 
apotheosis — and  to  judgment.  He  was  lifted  to  one  by  the 
desire  of  unionists  to  get  money,  no  matter  by  what  means; 
and  pressed  to  the  other  by  his  folly  and  his  fault — his 
pleasure  in  authority,  his  impatient  vanity,  his  uneasy  con- 
templation of  the  "grafting"  of  the  time.     Pure  devotion  to 


rni^ 


11    Owllvvi     i^twi  v»i 


'<Aft"j(^E       .       ^,)^tl^iW^'^  ARTICLES 

^laDor  as  a  cause  he  rarely  had,  and  he  betrayed  his  union  at 
last  for  a  few  extra  pieces  of  silver.  His  name  became  a 
byword  and  reproach,  and  now  unions  everywhere  are  hur- 
riedly substituting  the  term  "business  agent." 

That  this  is  more  than  a  change  in  name  alone  there  is 
little  to  show.  The  business  agent,  like  the  walking  dele- 
gate, quiets  complaint  by  saying,  "Well,  I  raised  your  wages," 
and  keeps  his  place  by  the  methods  of  machine  politics. 
The  ordinary  workmen  seldom  attend  union  elections,  as 
the  general  run  of  voters  do  not  go  to  primaries.  The  keys 
of  the  safety-vaults  are  in  the  business  agent's  pocket; 
strikes  are  on  or  off  at  his  bidding.  To  lay  hand  upon  him 
is  offense  so  high  that  only  the  union — not  the  established 
courts — can  fix  the  penalty.  To  stand  in  with  him,  as  the 
saying  goes,  is  to  insure  that  your  business  shall  proceed 
without  forfeiture  of  engagements.  There  is  of  course  add- 
ed expense  in  bribes,  and  miserable  sacrifices  of  self-respect 
and  right  standards. 

Employers  have  not  yet  gone  so  far  as  to  insist  on  elim- 
inating him;  they  have  only  here  and  there  restricted  his 
functions. 

The  Boston  building  trades  showed  what  could  be  done 
along  that  line  by  negotiating  an  agreement  determining 
that  the  business  agent  and  walking  delegate  should  not  be 
privileged  to  visit  any  works  in  business  hours  except  to 
interview  the  steward;  that  he  must  not  issue  orders  con- 
trolling the  operations  of  workmen,  nor  attempt  to  proselyte 
on  the  employer's  premises.  "Failure  on  the  part  of  any 
business  agent  to  observe  this  rule  shall  make  him  liable 
to  discipline,  after  investigation  by  the  [employers'  and 
unions']  joint  committee." 

Whether  he  and  his  labor  machine  will  abide  by  such  an 
agreement,  or  the  decisions  of  the  joint  committee,  re- 
mains to  be  shown.  Twenty-two  similar  bargains  were 
broken  in  Chicago  alone  last  summer.  Discipline  from  the 
executives  of  parent  bodies,  like  a  federation  or  an  interna- 
tional association,  would  be  more  effective  than  discipline 
by  a  joint  committee,  but  it  is  not  to  be  counted  on  except 
when,  in  some  notorious  instance,  an  alienated  public  with- 
draws   sympathy    and   leaves    unionism    to   search    its    heart 


TRAl^E  UNIONS  201 

alone.  Even  then  the  parent  federation,  after  the  manner 
of  the  structural  iron-workers  at  Kansas  City,  may  disavow 
the  action  of  its  own  pr-esident  in  rescinding  a  charter, 
and  by  seating  the  representatives  of  the  "local"  so  pun- 
ished, reerect  it  in  honorable  standing.  In  that  event,  the 
possibility  of  discipline  reverts  to  the  local's  members.  But, 
like  the  citizen  electorate,  these  are  too  disposed  to  stay  at 
home  and  let  the  machine  rup  itself — and  them. 


Craftsman.   13:  375-84.  January,  1908. 

Guild  Stamp  and  the  Union  Label.     Gustav  Stickley. 

The  guild  idea,  that  is,  the  spirit  of  association  uniting 
individuals  for  common  profit  as  well  as  preservation,  is  as 
old  as  civilization,  and  has  flourished  among  peoples  differ- 
ing widely  from  one  another  and  at  , periods  separated  by 
hundreds  and  even  thousands  of  years,  but  unquestionably 
it  reached  its  highest  expression  in  the  trades  guilds  of 
mediaeval  Europe,  those  great  organizations  which  crushed 
the  power  of  feudalism,  established  free  communication 
throughout  Europe,  made  possible  a  form  of  government 
established  upon  a  sound  and  lasting  basis,  ruled  all  the 
operations  of  finance  and  fixed  a  standard  for  work,  for  art 
and  for  literature  that  has  made  the  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth centuries  famous  for  all  time.  And  all  the  power  and 
influence  of  the  trades  guilds  resulted  from  the  fact  that 
the  success  of  their  united  action  depended  solely  upon  the 
honesty  of  individual  eflfort.  A  rigid  industrial  system  that 
was  the  law  and  life  of  the  guild  governed  both  the  train- 
ing of  each  individual  workman  and  the  quality  of  the  goods 
produced,  and  the  eflfect  of  this  was  to  develop  such  skill  in 
hand  and  brain  that  the  workman  could  take  honest  pride 
in  what  he  made,  and  could  feel  that  he  as  an  individual 
had  achieved  something  that  would  add  to  rather  than 
lower  the  reputation  of  the  guild.  In  short,  instead  of 
being  a  cog  in  a  vast  system  of  industrial  machinery,  the 
workman  was  accustomed  to  regard  himself  as  legitimate 
heir  to  a  part  of  the  business  of  the  nation. 


202  SELECTED  AHTICLES 

There  is  no  more  interesting  tale  in  all  history  than  the 
story  of  the  Greater  Guilds,  which  were  little  republics 
within  themselves,  living  under  the  strictest  laws  and  en- 
joying an  influence  so  extensive  that  the  wonderful  com- 
mercial prosperity,  the  artistic  and  industrial  supremacy  and 
the  intellectual  acumen  of  the  mediajval  Florentines,  tor 
example,  may  be  regarded  as  the  outcome  of  the  guild 
system.  As  each  guild  was  an  independent,  self-ruling  in- 
stitution, its  members  naturally  took  a  continuous  and  eager 
share  in  political  life  and  obtained,  as  a  consequence  of  such 
varied  political  and  economic  training,  a  grasp  of  large  mat- 
ters that  made  them  as  adroit  in  diplomacy  and  parliamen- 
tary practice  as  they  were  accurate  in  business  methods,  so 
that  on  the  occasion  of  upheavals  in  the  existing  form  of 
government,  which  frequently  took  place  in  the  Italian 
cities,  they  were  able  at  once  to  step  forward  and  meet  the 
emergency  with  well-advised  and  adequate  provisional  gov- 
ernment until  the  crisis  was  passed. 

It  would  take  a  volume  to  tell  of  the  honors  and  achieve- 
ments of  the  guilds,  but  only  one  sentence  to  show  the  foun- 
dation of  them  all,  which  was — efficient  workmanship,  thor- 
ough honesty,  the  perfection  of  system  and  personal  pride 
in  the  reputation  of  the  organization.  These  old  merchants 
and  craftsmen  made  a  religion  of  industry,  and  it  was  the 
object  of  the  guild  not  only  to  maintain  and  extend  its 
power  as  an  organization,  but  to  benefit  each  member  in  his 
ind^ividual  capacity,  providing  him  with  work,  profit  and 
pleasure,  but  always  with  the  understanding  that  his  work 
and  his  moral  character  were  to  be  subjected  to  rigid  scru- 
tiny and  that  any  one  falling  short  of  the  standards  of  the 
guild  must  submit  to  severe  punishment.  The  great  power 
of  the  guilds  lay  as  much  in  their  close  connection  with  the 
conduct  and  details  of  every-day  life  as  in  their  relation  to 
national  or  continental  enterprises.  They  were  no  mere 
formal  organizations  for  purposes  which  began  and  ended 
with  commerce  and  industry.  To  borrow  some  vivid  words 
of  description:  "Their  members  sat  together  at  the  feast, 
stood  by  one  another's  honor  in  the  mart,  lived  in  the  same 
quarter,  shared  the  same  purchase,  marched  side  by  side  in 
the  pageant,  acted  together  in  the  play  and  fought  together 


TRADE  UNIONS  203 

on  the  part  of  the  city  walls  committed  to  their  care.  The 
merchant  lived  in  his  warehouse,  which  was  also  his  factory 
as  well  as  his  shop,  the  apprentice  sat  at  his  master's  table 
for  seven  years,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  an  adopted 
son,  and  on  attaining  the  membership  of  the  guild  he  gained 
a  recognized  and  honorable  position  in  the  land." 

That  this  last  was  so  was  due  to  the  high,  standard  of 
the  guild.  When  the  guild  stamp  was  put  upon  any  piece 
of  work  it  was  accepted  without  question  in  all  markets  as 
a  guarantee  against  any  falsification  of  material  or  any 
flaw  in  workmanship.  To  quote  from  the  history  of  the 
Calimala,  or  the  guild  of  Florentine  cloth  dressers:  "The 
statutes  for  the  good  of  the  guild,  enforced  by  so  many 
magistrates,  prescribed  hard  and  fast  rules  for  the  exercise  . 
of  trade.  Very  severe  punishments  were  inflicted  when  the 
merchandise  was  of  inferior  quality,  defective  or  counterfeit. 
Every  piece  was  labeled,  and  any  stain  or  rent  not  recorded 
by  this  label  entailed  the  punishment  of  the  merchant  con- 
cerned. Above  all,  there  was  great  strictness  as  to  accur- 
acy of  measure.  Every  guild  had  a  tribunal  composed  either 
solely  of  its  members  or  jointly  with  those  of  another  for 
the  settlement  of  all  disputes  connected  with  the  trade,  and 
enforced  severe  penalties  on  all  who  referred  such  disputes 
to  the  ordinary  courts  of  justice.  The  punishments  were 
usually  fines,  and  persons  refusing  to  pay  them,  after  receiv- 
ing several  warnings,  were  excluded  from  the  guild  and 
practically  ruined,  for  from  that  moment  their  merchandise, 
being  unstamped,  was  no  longer  guaranteed  by  the  associa- 
tion, and  they  themselves  were  unable  to  continue  their 
work  in  Florence,  and  often  were  debarred  elsewhere." 

This  was  the  significance  of  the  guild  stamp,  which  being 
affixed  meant  that  the  goods  reached  the  standard  estab- 
lished by  the  guild,  and  had  the  whole  power  of  its  reputa- 
tion behind  them.  In  these  days  we  have  the  union  label, 
and  the  difference  between  it  and  the  guild  stamp  symbolizes 
the  whole  change  in  standards.  Everybody  is  familiar  with 
the  efforts  of  the  unions  to  force  the  use  of  the  label  through 
appeals  to  the  public  to  patronize  union-made  goods  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other,  and  also  through  threats  of  boycotts, 
strikes  and  every  form  of  warfare  known  to  those  who  con- 


204  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

trol  the  campaigns  of  union  labor  against  the  manufacturer 
or  dealer  who  refuses  to  recognize  the  label. 

Remembering  the  significance  of  the  guild  stamp,  the 
question  naturally  arises:  What  does  the  union  label  stand 
for?  It  is  a  shop  mark  to  indicate  a  standard  of  excellence 
of  which  the  manufacturer  is  proud  and  which  serves  to 
advertise  thg  fact  that  his  goods  are  of  a  quality  that  he  is 
willing  to  acknowledge  and  to  guarantee,  or  is  it  simply  an 
indication  that  men  who  have  banded  themselves  together 
lor  the  purpose  of  monopolizing  the  production  of  that 
particular  article  have  been  successful  in  forcing  some  man- 
ufacturer to  come  to  their  terms?  In  the  present  day,  of 
course,  we  have  no  guild  stamp  to  serve  as  a  general  stand- 
ard and  guarantee,  but  when  a  manufacturer  makes  honest 
goods,  he  generally  wants  the  consumer  to  know  it,  and  his 
label  or  shop  mark  is  as  important  to  him  as  a  means  of 
identification  as  the  guild  stamp  was  to  the  guildsmen  of  cen- 
turies ago.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  shoddy  goods  are  seldom 
identified  in  this  way.  for  if  the  goods  do  not  come  up  to  the 
standard  demanded  by  the  consumer  the  label  would  only 
have  the  eflfect  of  identifying  them  to  the  detriment  of  their 
sales.  But  in  the  case  of  the  union  label  there  can  be  no 
possible  significance  as  a  mark  of  excellence  in  quality. 
That  is  a  matter  entirely  beyond  the  control  of  the  work- 
man or  of  the  union  to  which  he  belongs.  The  label  of  a 
manufacturer  is,  in  a  sense,  a  personal  guarantee  of  cjualit}'. 
It  means  a  certain  grade  of  material,  a  certain  .style  in  the 
make  of  the  article,  and  may,  in  some  cases,  be  worth  mil- 
lions to  the  man  who  owns  it.  It  is  the  direct  descendant 
of  the  old  guild  stamp,  while  the  union  label  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  standard  of  the  goods  produced  and,  save  for 
the  fact  that  it  guarantees  the  exclusion  of  sweat-shop 
goods,  it  carries  no  meaning  to  the  consumer  beyond  a  re- 
minder that  an  organization  of  workmen  is  using  every 
means  to  enforce  the  recognition  of  the  union  shop,  there 
being  not  one  iota  of  difference  in  quality  between  goods 
that  bear  the  union  label  and  those  that  do  not.  The  manu- 
facturer having  entire  authority  as  to  designs,  materials, 
quality  of  goods  and  the  apportionment  of  tasks  to  the 
workmen  in  making  these  goods,  it  follows  that  the  purpose 


TRADE  UNIONS  205 

of  the  union  label  is  purely  coercive,  and  that  its  sole  value 
to  either  workman  or  consumer  lies  in  the  recognition  of 
the  union  that  is  implied  by  its  use  and  the  revenue  derived 
by  the  union  from  the  sale  of  it  to  the  manufacturer. 

If  the  trade  union  of  today  is  ever  to  return  to  the  stand- 
ards of  the  mediaeval  guilds  and  to  attain  to  the  power 
which  resulted  from  the  strict  and  honest  maintenance  of 
these  standards,  it  must  abandon  its  policy  of  attempting  to 
secure  monopoly  prices,  of  unfair  methods  of  keeping  down 
membership  and  of  intimidation  and  violence  toward  noi]^- 
union  men,  and  return  to  the  principle  that  no  organization 
can  be  organic  and  constructive  in  its  nature  unless  it  be 
founded  upon  the  principle  of  efficiency, — upon  honest  in- 
dividual effort,  out  of  which  effective  united  effort  naturally 
grows.  To  do  this  would,  of  course,  demand  a  thorough 
reorganization  of  our  whole  industrial  system.  The  high 
standards  of  the  old  guilds  were  possible  because  the  guilds 
themselves  were  not  organizations  of  workmen  arrayed 
against  employers,  or  organizations  of  employers  excluding 
the  workmen,  but  bodies  which  included  every  member  of 
the  trade  or  craft,  from  the  wealthiest  master  craftsman  or 
merchant  down  to  the  humblest  apprentice  whose  indentures 
had  just  been  signed.  All  alike  were  responsible  for  the 
honor  of  the  guild,  and  the  esprit  de  corps  that  resulted 
from  the  personal  contact  of  the  master  and  workmen  and 
the  freedom  and  encouragement  given  to  all  individual  ef- 
fort made  vital  and  natural  the  growth  of  the  whole  organi- 
zation. 

Yet,  false  as  are  the  standards  which  actuate  most  of 
the  efforts  on  the  part  of  modern  labor  organizations  to 
control  the  industrial  situation,  they  are  by  no  means  all  to 
blame  for  the  meaninglessness  of  the  union  label  and  the 
fact  that  it  has  nothing  behind  it  worth  fighting  for.  If  a 
standard  of  efficiency  in  which  the  unions  have  a  share  is  to 
be  established  in  manufactures,  it  must  be  one  in  which  the 
men  as  individuals  are  intereste4,  which  they  take  a  per- 
sonal pride  in  maintaining  and  for  which  they  receive  a  just 
proportion  of  the  reward.  The  effect  upon  the  men  of  the 
present  system,  by  which  they  are  able  through  certain  co- 
ercive measures  on  the  part  of  the  union  to  obtain  shorter 


206  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

hours  and  higher  wages  in  return  for  careless  and  incom- 
petent service,  cannot  be  otherwise  than  harmful.  It  shel- 
ters the  lazy  and  inefficient  workman  and  it  denies  to  the 
ambitious  and  skilful  man  his  right  to  advance  to  the  posi- 
tion which  naturally  belongs  to  him.  Consequently,  the 
great  weakness  of  the  labor  union  of  today  is  that  it  tends 
to  drag  all  its  members  down  to  the  level  of  the  slow- 
est and  the  stupidest.  While  they  belong  to  the  union 
there  can  be  no  acknowledgment  or  higher  payment  for  the 
production  of  superior  goods  for  which  there  is  a  legitimate 
demand  and  which  are  worth  more  money  than  the  inferior 
product  of  less  skilled  workmen;  in  fact,  their  work  as 
individuals  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  price  or  standard  of 
the  product.  The  business  of  each  man  is  to  run  his  ma- 
chine, get  through  his  day's  work,  draw  his  pay  and  stand  by 
his  union.  He  can  have  no  possible  interest  in  the  thing 
made.  When  matters  are  shaped  so  that  the  individual 
workman  may  find  some  scope  for  the  expression  of  his 
own  ideas, — for  the  use  of  his  knowledge  and  experience  in 
opportunities  given  to  study  the  need  for  which  the  article 
is  produced  and  to  share  with  his  employer  the  responsibil- 
ity of  its  design  and  its  quality,  it  will  be  time  to  talk  of 
returning  to  the  standards  of  the  old  guilds  and  also  of  en- 
forcing the  use  of  the  union  label  on  goods  made  by  union 
men.  But  the  only  way  to  gain  energy,  honesty  and  intelli- 
gence from  the  workman  is  to  make  it  worth  his  while  to 
exercise  them.  Under  the  present  system  he  is  little  more 
than  a  part  of  the  machinery  of  the  factory  he  works  in. 
There  is  absolutely  no  reason  why  he  should  feel  any  in- 
terest in  his  work  beyond  the  daily  wage  he  earns  for  per- 
forming the  monotonous  task  set  for  him.  It  is  a  universal 
law  that  work  is  not  alone  a  means  to  keep  body  and  soul 
together,  but  also  a  means  of  growth  through  self-expres- 
sion,— a  means  by  which  individual  capacity  and  industry 
gain  individual  recognition  and  bring  an  adequate  return, 
and  if  the  opportunity  for  growth  is  denied,  the  work  is 
hardly  worth  the  doing. 

If  such  reorganization  were  possible,  and  employers  and 
employees  would  realize  that  their  best  can  be  done  only 
when  they  work  together  toward  a  common  end,  the  labor 


TRADE  UNIONS  207 

unions  might  hope  to  provide  themselves  with  the  "real 
leaders"  spoken  of  by  Dr.  Butler,  and,  founded  on  the 
solid  basis  of  efficient  work,  to  grow  healthily  along  the 
lines  of  personal  development  and  of  sound  citizenship. 
This  is  a  question  that  affects  not  only  the  workingmen, 
but  the  whole  of  our  natural  life,  for  our  workmen  are  our 
citizens,  and  under  the  present  system  our  workmen  are 
becoming  less  and  less  efficient.  When  a  man  depends  not 
on  his  own  efforts  but  on  the  efforts  of  some  one  else,  that 
is,  on  the  power  or  influence  of  his  union  to  do  for  him 
what  he  is  too  indifferent  or  too  inefficient  to  do  for  him- 
self, he  is  sinking  in  the  scale  as  a  man  and  a  worker  and  is 
losing  all  the  power  of  individual  achievement  which  might 
be  his  were  he  allowed  to  depend  upon  himself. 

As  it  stands  now,  the  whole  policy  of  the  labor  union 
seems  to  be  tending  toward  disintegration.  The  walking 
delegate  is  supreme,  and  the  walking  delegate  is  the  na- 
tural prey  of  the  great  money  powers.  Many  an  honest,  ca- 
pable workman  is  sent  unwillingly  out  on  strike,  not  because 
there  is  any  real  grievance  to  be  fought,  but  because  the 
vanity  and  cupidity  of  the  labor  leaders  have  been  used  to 
further  the  ends  of  some  unscrupulous  captain  of  industry 
who  wishes  to  overwhelm  his  competitors  or  to  shut  down 
for  a  time  upon  his  own  expenses.  Even  when  this  is  not 
the  case,  the  rule  of  passion  and  prejudice  in  the  persons 
of  glib-tongued  demagogues  is  often  responsible  for  wide- 
spread disaster  that  comes  to  working  people  as  the  result 
of  their  loyalty  to  the  union. 

As  a  nation  we  are  now  using  every  possible  effort  to 
destroy  or  reorganize  the  trusts  and  start  afresh  upon  a 
sounder  basis.  It  would  be  easier  and  perhaps  better  in 
the  long  run  to  destroy  or  reorganize  the  labor  unions,  for 
the  trusts,  whatever  industrial  evils  have  arisen  from  their 
unchecked  growth,  are  organized  on  principles  that  are  es- 
sentially constructive.  They  unquestionably  are  created  to 
serve  individual  greed,  but  they  are  also  the  greatest  expres- 
sions of  individual  efficiency.  Whatever  the  captain  of  in- 
dustry may  or  may  not  be,  there  is  no  question  as  to  the 
efficiency  of  his  method  of  doing  the  work  that  he  has  set 
himself  to  do,  or  of  his  interest  in   the  performance   of  it. 


208  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Witli  fhe  standards  which  now  form  the  basis  of  its  action, 
the  labor  union  can  oppose  to  cool  generalship  only  brute 
force;  to  well  calculated  and  sound  business  principles  and 
methods  only  prejudice  and  feeling.  If  efficiency  could  be 
made  the  warrant  of  advancement  for  each  individual,  and 
honest  conviction  the  basis  of  united  action,  as  in  the  days 
ot  the  mediaeval  guilds,  there  is  no  question  but  what  the 
organizations  of  workers  could  rank  among  the  most  im- 
portant powers  in  the  land.  History  teaches  us  no  more 
significant  lesson  than  that  the  rulers  of  a  nation,  when  they 
become  weak  or  unworthy,  are  always  replaced  from  the 
ranks  of  the  workers.  It  is  a  fundamental  law  of  progress 
that  no  development  is  possible  save  through  interest  in 
work,  and  the  problems  that  come  up  concerning  it,  and 
that  the  man  who  wrestles  most  vigorously  with  these  prob- 
lems is  the  man  who  is  best  able  to  grapple  with  great 
things. 

If  labor  would  follow  the  example  of  capital  and  com- 
bine for  greater  efficiency,  it  would  be  more  in  accord  with 
the  old  American  spirit  that  made  this  country  what  it  is: 
the  spirit  of  independence,  of  self-confidence  and  of  ambi- 
tion to  rise  in  life  by  force  of  ability,  intelligence  and  hon- 
esty. The  labor  unions  have  relaxed  the  moral  fiber  of 
their  members  even  while  striving  honestly  to  benefit  them. 
The  union  man  is  provided  with  easy  work,  good  pay  and 
short  hours  when  well,  and  is  sure  of  some  help  from  his 
organization  should  he  fall  ill,  but  as  a  penalty  he  is  re- 
stricted to  the  level  of  the  weakest  member  of  his  union, 
and  can  never  hope  to  rise  by  excellence  of  workmanship  or 
the  use  of  his  brain  to  a  leading  position  or  to  the  acquiring 
of  a  competence  by  superior  industry  or  frugality. 

As  the  matter  stands  now,  the  principles  and  policies  of 
the  unions  are  directly  opposed  to  intelligence,  indepen- 
dence, industry  and  ambition  on  the  part  of  their  members. 
In  place  of  encouraging  these,  the  union  as  a  body  en- 
deavors to  coerce  and  to  overreach,  to  gain  every  advantage 
and  to  give  as  little  as  possible,  to  produce  class  hatred 
and  antagonism  between  employer  and  employee,  instead 
of  acknowledging  that  capital  and  labor  are  mutually  inter- 
dependent, and  that  a  single  standard  for  both  would  go  far 
to  remove  the  antagonism  that  now  exists  between  them 


TRADE  UNIONS  209 

Independent.  53:  2128-30.  September  3,  1901. 
Wherein  They  Fail. 

Labor  organizations  have  always  been  subjected  to  a  hot 
fire  of  criticism.  Not  only  employers,  but  also  the  literary 
and  professional  classes,  including  the  writers  for  newspa- 
pers, have  ever  been  ready  to  expose  any  tyranny  or  fool- 
ishness of  which  trade  unions  have  been  guilty.  Neverthe- 
less, by  the  year  1895,  the  unions,  after  protracted  fighting, 
had  succeeded  in  living  down  a  great  deal  of  popular  preju- 
dice, and  in  winning  influential  support  from  disinterested 
and  intelligent  onlookers.  One  had  only  to  compare  the 
attitude  of  the  public  seven  or  eight  years  since  toward 
organized  labor  in  general  with  that  of  England  of  a  gener- 
ation ago,  as  brilliantly  portrayed  by  Charles  Reade  in  "Put 
Yourself  in  His  Place,"  to  realize  that,  notwithstanding  much 
remaining  hostility,  trade  unionism  was  no  longer  hated 
with  the  bitter  hatred  of  earlier  days. 

It  is  quite  unnecessary  now  to  insist  that  the  more 
thoughtful  and  dispassionate  observers  of  social  tendencies 
had  come  not  only  to  look  tolerantly  upon  the  organization 
of  labor  but  also  to  see  in  it  elements  of  positive  good,  that 
seemed  to  be  indispensable  to  a  safe  and  normal  develop- 
ment of  democratic  institutions.  No  one  class  in  any  so- 
ciety can  enjoy  unlimited  power  without  becoming  over- 
bearing and  bringing  the  traditions  of  republican  equality 
and  simplicity  to  naught.  Under  modern  conditions  the 
employing  classes  in  England  and  America,  commanding 
as  they  do  fabulous  amounts  of  capital,  and  understanding 
as  they  do  the  methods  of  efficient  business  organization, 
would  soon  become  intolerably  arrogant,  and  would  con- 
vert republican  institutions  into  a  mockery,  if,  from  time  to 
time,  they  were  not  confronted  with  organized  resistance. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  matter  for  sincere  regret  that  for  five 
years  past  the  great  labor  organizations  of  this  country  and 
of  England  have  so  often  behaved  with  an  almost  incredible 
foolishness.  They  have  once  more  started  a  strong  reac- 
tion of  public  opinion  against  themselves,  and  in  certain  in- 
stances they  have  even  awakened  in  some  degree  the  old 
spirit   of  bigotry  and   bitterness.     There  never  was   a   time 


210  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

when  a  strong  and  efficient  organization  of  labor  and  a  wise 
policy  on  the  part  of  its  leaders  was  more  needed  than  now; 
and  yet,  at  the  critical  moment,  the  leaders  are  making 
blunders  that  are  almost  crimes  and  for  which  they  can 
hardly  be  forgiven.  By  the  great  strike  of  1897  the  English 
iron  and  steel  workers  knocked  England's  industrial  primacy 
in  the  head.  They  precipitated  a  disaster  which  will  never 
be  retrieved  while  civilization  endures.  By  what  looks  like 
a  deliberate  breach  of  contract  the  Amalgamated  Iron  and 
Steel  Workers  of  this  country  have  now  given  to  the  most 
powerful  combination  of  capitalistic  interests  in  the  world 
an  opportunity  to  develop  and  to  make  use  of  arbitrary 
power  which  the  most  wise  and  patient  democratic  endeavor 
may  not  be  able  to  curb  for  years  to  come. 

There  are  three  distinct  ways  in  which  organized  labor 
miserably  fails,  to  the  keen  disappointment  of  its  best  friends 
and  well  wishers. 

In  the  first  place,  it  attempts  to  extend  the  principle  of 
unionism  by  coercion.  The  temptation  undoubtedly  is  great. 
The  men  who  have  struggled  to  .build  up  a  union  cannot  be 
expected  to  feel  kindly  toward  men  who,  as  the  trade  union- 
ist looks  at  the  matter,  are  ready  to  profit  by  any  gains 
which  trade  unionism  has  conquered  for  the  wage-earning 
classes,  but  who  are  unwilling  to  do  their  share  toward 
supporting  the  unionist  movement.  Frail  human  nature  is 
not  to  be  blamed  overmuch  when  men  who  feel  bitterly 
resort  to  force  to  compel  those  whom  they  regard  as  dis- 
loyal, or  hostile,  to  act  with  the  majority,  or  even  at  times 
with  the  minority,  for  what  is  believed  to  be  the  common  wel- 
fare. Nevertheless,  the  policy  of  coercing  non-union  men 
has  always  been  and  always  will  be  absolutely  fatal  to  the 
trade-union  cause.  By  its  very  nature  the  organization  of 
labor  can  be  effected  and  maintained  only  by  intelligence 
and  reasonableness.  It  makes  no  real  gains  except  as  it 
convinces  workingmen  themselves  and  the  general  public 
that  it  is  both  expedient  and  just.  The  American  people 
will  never  extend  their  hearty  sympathy  and  co-operation  to 
any  movement  that  attempts  to  accomplish  by  violence 
what  can  be  satisfactorily  accomplished  only  by  education. 


TRADE  UNIONS  211 

So  long  as  the  labor  leaders  counsel  a  coercive  policy  they 
kick  against  the  pricks,  and  irreparably  injure  their  cause. 

In  the  second  place,  it  seems  to  be  well  established  that, 
in  recent  years  at  least,  the  labor  unions  have  been  indif- 
ferent, or  worse  than  indififerent,  to  the  binding  force  of 
their  agreements.  From  every  part  of  the  country  we  hear 
complaints  from  employers  who,  on  the  whole,  have  been 
friendly  to  the  trade  union  principle  that  there  is  no  longer 
any  use  in  making  agreements  or  contracts  with  a  labor 
organization  because  the  leaders  of  the  organization  have 
lost  or  thrown  overboard  all  sense  of  business  honor,  and 
make  their  promises  in  the  deliberate  expectation  of  break- 
ing them.  Where  there  is  so  much  smoke  there  undoubted- 
ly is  some  lire,  and  it  is  a  deplorable  thing  that  the  unions 
have  by  any  conduct,  whether  deliberately  dishonorable  or 
merely  negligent,  brought  upon  themselves  such  fatal  criti- 
cism. Whether  merited  or  not,  this  criticism  is  sure  to  op- 
erate with  deadly  effect,  and  to  turn  into  hostile  opponents 
many  influential  men  who  would  gladly  support  the  trade 
union  principle  if  they  could  do  so  without  seeming  to  coun- 
tenance dishonor. 

The  third  way  in  which  the  labor  organizations  fail  is  in 
their  attitude  toward  the  amount  and  quality  of  work  done 
by  trade  union  members.  In  the  days  of  medieval  guilds 
every  workman  felt  an  intense  pride  in  the  quality  of 
his  work.  Unskillful  or  dishonest  workmanship  would  have 
subjected  him  not  only  to  the  wrath  of  his  employer,  but 
also  to  the  contempt  of  his  fellow  craftsman.  We  hate  to 
say  it,  but,  so  far  as  our  observation  has  extended — and  it 
has  extended  over  a  pretty  wide  field — the  spirit  of  the  old 
craft  guild  has  entirely  disappeared  from  the  modern  trade 
union.  Not  only  does  the  bricklayer,  the  carpenter  or  the 
plumber  who  belongs  to  the  union  fear  to  work  a  moment 
overtime,  or  to  work  too  fast,  lest  he  incur  the  disfavor  of 
the  labor  leaders,  but  he  even  fears  to  do  work  that  shall 
be  thoroughly  good  of  its  kind  lest  he  incur  the  criticism  of 
men  who  believe  that  it  is  the  duty  of  loyal  trade  unionists 
to  "make  work"  for  one  another.  Bad  work  has  to  be 
done  over.  Therefore  the  bad  workman  befriends  his  fel- 
low unionist! 


212  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

That  this  simple  logic  as  it  lies  in  the  minds  of  many 
workmen  is  more  a  matter  of  ignorance  than  of  immorality 
we  are  willing  to  believe.  But  in  either  case  it  is  disastrous 
in  the  long  run  to  the  trade  union  cause.  There  is  no  one 
thing  which  the  trade  unions  could  do  which  would  more 
certainly  make  them  popular  with  mankind  in  general  than 
the  adoption  of  a  policy  of  first-class  workmanship  under  all 
circumstances.  When  the  employment  of  a  trade-unionist 
carpenter,  mason  or  plumber  means  the  certainty  of  thor- 
ough and  honest  workmanship  the  trade  unions  will  have 
little  cause  to  complain  of  an  unfriendly  public,  if  in  other 
respects  also  they  deal  fairly  and  honorably. 


Journal  of  Political  Economy.  14:  129-42.  March,  1906. 
Unions  versus  Higher  Wages.     J.  Laurence  Laughlin. 

This  case  is  now  on  trial  before  the  tribunal  of  the  in- 
dustrial world.  It  promises  to  be  a  cause  celcbre.  The  de- 
cision in  this  matter  is  of  vital  importance  to  millions  of 
people,  and  untold  millions  of  dollars  are  at  stake.  There 
have  been  many  advocates  pleading  before  this  court  who 
have  told  but  one  side  of  the  question.  In  a  plain  and 
simple  way,  as  a  friend  of  those  who  wish  higher  wages,  I 
ask  to  be  permitted  to  make  a  plea  for  the  defendant.  I 
wish  to  have  this  chance  to  present  the  economic  argument 
in  favor  of  higher  wages.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  plaintiffs 
in  this  case  now  on  trial — the  labor  unions — have  not  ren- 
dered full  justice.     I  ask  judgment  for  higher  wages. 

In  the  past  the  unions  have  presented  the  grounds  of 
their  actions;  and  they  report  they  have  had  many  difficul- 
ties in  raising,  and  sometimes  even  in  keeping  up,  wages. 
The  position  of  the  unions  should  be  carefully  examined, 
because — as  we  are  pleading  the  cause  of  higher  wages — it 
should  be  ascertained  whether  the  union  policy  has  been 
one  which  is  likely  to  result  in  higher  wages.  Because  of 
errors  on  the  part  of  the  unions,  because  of  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  the  causes  regulating  wages,  the  unions,  while  seem- 
ing to  be  working  in  favor  of  the  workingmen,  havfe  been 
acting  against  the  real  interests  of  the  laborers,  and  against 


i 


TRADE  UNIONS  213 

tlie  future  improvement  of  their  standard  of  living.  I  shall 
try  to  enumerate  briefly  the  things  which  have  been  wrong- 
ly managed: 

1.  The  unions  have  stimulated,  rather  than  attempted  to 
remove,  the  antagonistic  class-feeling  between  the  employer 
and  the  employee.  The  antagonism  has  not  always  existed. 
In  earlier  decades  of  our  history  the  antagonism  between 
the  employing  and  the  laboring  class  was  far  less  in  evi- 
dence. With  the  great  increase  of  wealth,  with  the  conse- 
quent envy  excited  by  its  proud  display,  with  the  growth  of 
large  cities,  and  especially  with  the  influx  of  foreign  immi- 
grants steeped  in  the  socialistic  tenets  of  Europe,  there  has 
come  a  pronounced  change.  The  talk  of  arraying  the  mass- 
es against  the  plutocrats  is  now  frequently  bandied  about. 

In  the  earlier  days  the  gap  between  the  ordinary  work- 
men and  the  employer  was  inappreciable;  and  comparisons 
between  their  possessions  were  not  suggestive  of  ill-feeling. 
About  1840,  daughters  of  self-respecting  Americans  worked 
in  the  cotton  mills  of  New  England;  and  yet  the  wages 
were  small  as  compared  with  those  now  earned  by  workers 
many  grades  lower  in  intelligence.  In  fifty  years  the  actual 
money  wages  have  doubled;  the  money  buys  more  of  goods 
lowered  in  price;  and  at  the  same  time  the  hours  of  labor 
have  fallen  from  fourteen  to  sixteen  per  day  to  eight  or  ten. 
These  gains,  moreover,  were  obtained  before  the  activity  of 
labor  unions,  and  must  be  attributed  directly  to  the  in- 
creased productivity  of  industry,  which,  by  increasing  the 
efficiency  of  labor  and  capital,  increased  the  quantity  and 
value  of  the  output,  and  thus  allowed  the  capital  its  old  re- 
muneration, while  adding  largely  to  the  wages  of  labor. 
The  standard  of  living  among  workmen  is  higher  than  it 
has  ever  been,  higher  than  it  is  among  most  competing  na- 
tions. 

2.  The  unions  have  encouraged  the  theory  of  a  right  to 
ownership  in  the  product  made  by  labor,  capital,  and  man- 
agement. So  long  as  great  fortunes  are  accumulated  in  the 
United  States,  the  fact  itself  is  taken  as  a  proof  that  labor 
is  not  receiving  its  due  share  of  the  results  of  production, 
without  any  real  attention  to  the  economic  principles  regfu- 
lating  the  payments  to  capital  and  the  other  factors  of  pro- 
duction.    It  is  believed  that  additions  to  the  wages  of  labor 


214  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

can  be  exacted  as  long  as  any  large  profits  are  taken  out  of 
a  business  by  the  owners.  The  rank  and  file  of  the  labor- 
ing class  fully  believe  that  there  is  no  economic  reason 
why  the  wages,  for  instance,  of  a  plumber,  now  receiving  $4  a 
day,  should  not  be  increased  to  $10,  or  even  to  $50  a  day. 
As  a  consequence  of  this  widely  accepted  belief,  when  by 
strikes  and  pressure  the  employers  are  led  to  give  an  in- 
crease of  wages,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  this  rise  will 
produce  satisfaction  and  peace.  Far  from  it;  the  grant  of 
the  increase  is  regarded  as  evidence  that  more  will  be  dis- 
gorged of  what  belongs  by  rights  to  labor,  if  only  pressure 
enough  is  applied  to  the  employers.  Give  an  inch,  and  very 
»  soon  an  ell  will  be  demanded.  The  theoretical  basis,  there- 
fore, of  much  of  the  agitation  for  higher  wages  is  to  be 
found  in  the  belief  that  large  fortunes  are  necessarily  ac- 
cumulated at  the  expense  of  the  laboring  class,  without  re- 
gard to  the  other  necessary  elements  in  production.  And 
this  point  of  view  explains  clearly  why  there  is  such  eager- 
ness in  certain  quarters  to  legislate  against  large   fortunes. 

3.  The  unions  feed  their  members  chiefly  on  socialistic 
and  un-American  literature.  In  the  main,  the  literature  of 
socialism  and  unionism  is  indistinguishable.  Of  course, 
many  unionists  are  not  socialists;  but  the  literature  actually 
read,  if  at  all,  by  the  unions,  is  the  inheritance  of  Marxian- 
ism,  a  brew  of  all  the  different  theories  of  European  radi- 
cals, assuming  specific  form  or  expression  according  to  the 
individuality  and  eccentricity  of  the  prophets  of  the  "new 
order."  From  this  source  is  derived  the  common  belief  that 
it  is  labor  which  has  created  the  value  in  the  product  of  in- 
dustry. There  is  no  denying  the  widespread  diffusion  of 
this  idea;  and  it  inspires  the  unions  to  make  practical  de- 
mands based  upon  this  theory.  In  the  Homestead  strike, 
some  years  ago,  a  very  emphatic  claim  was  made  by  the 
laborers  to  ownership  in  the  establishment.  Such  points  of 
view  may  be  visionary,  but  their  enforcement  by  unions  in 
specific  acts  makes  up  a  part  of  the  practical  situation  which 
employers  have  to  face. 

4.  They  have  approved  the  mistaken  policy  of  "making 
work."  There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  restriction  of  the 
output — or  "making  work" — is  widely  prevalent;  and  yet  its 


TRADE  UNIONS  215 

existence  is  frequently  denied  by  the  unions.  The  basis  of 
this  policy  seems  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  its  origin 
given  by  labor  leaders.  It  is  claimed  that  the  employers, 
wishing  to  get  the  maximum  work  out  of  the  laborers,  intro- 
duced an  unusually  swift  workman,  called  a  pace-maker, 
whose  results  must  be  equaled  by  all  other  workmen.  Or, 
if  piece-work  were  introduced,  when  very  active  men  began 
to  earn  high  daily  wages,  the  price  paid  per  piece  was  re- 
duced, so  that  ordinary  effort  earned  very  low  wages.  To 
meet  this  policy  of  grasping  employers,  it  is  said  that  the 
unions  found  the  limitation  of  output  to  be  necessary.  This 
explanation,  however,  is  disingenious.  With  most  laborers 
there  is  a  belief  that  work,  or  employment,  is  limited,  and 
if  a  particular  job  can  be  prolonged,  they  get  so  much  more 
out  of  the  employer;  that  such  acts  are  ruinous  to  the 
efficiency  of  production,  raise  the  prices  of  products,  and 
prevent  employers  from  getting  contracts  and  offering  fu- 
ture employment,  seems  beyond  the  vision  of  many  unions. 
As  a  rule,  they  demand  all  they  can  get,  by  dint  of  threats 
and  force,  and  leave  it  to  the  employer  to  overcome  the 
increased  cost  as  best  he  may. 

5.  Finally,  the  unions  have  wrongly  based  their  whole 
course  of  action  on  the  principle  of  a  monopoly  of  the  supply 
of  laborers  in  a  given  occupation.  A  monopoly  is  obviously 
effective  in  regulating  the  price  of  anything  only  if  the 
monopoly  is  fairly  complete;  it  must  control  the  whole  sup- 
ply. Moreover,  there  must  be  a  demand  sufficient  to  take 
off  all  the  existing  supply,  or  the  price  is  likely  to  fall. 
Thus,  there  must  not  only  be  an  active  demand  for  labor 
from  employers,  but,  in  order  to  regulate  the  price,  the  un- 
ions' must  control  all  of  the  labor  then  available.  This,  in 
brief,  is  the  real  stumbling-block  of  unionism  in  America. 
In  fact,  the  unions  include  only  about  7  per  cent,  of  the  total 
body  of  laborers.  This  result  is  true  in  spite  of  the  pro- 
claimed intention  to  include  in  a  union  each  worker  of  some 
occupation,  and  then  to  federate  all  the  unions.  In  some 
one  locality,  however,  it  is  possible  that  all  of  a  certain  em- 
ployment may  be  included  in  the  membership. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  theory  of  a  monopoly  effec- 
tive on  the  whole  supply,  fails,  and  becomes  a  theory  of  an 


2i6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

artificial  and  only  partial  monopoly,  working  to  establish  a 
price  above  that  which  will  insure  the  employment  of  the 
whole  supply  of  competing  laborers.  This  situation,  conse- 
quently, means  always  and  inevitably  the  existence  of  non- 
union men,  against  whom  the  unions  must  constantly  wage 
war.  Under  this  system,  high  wages  for  some  within  a 
union  can  be  maintained  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  others 
without  the  union.  In  short,  the  union  scale  of  wages  can 
be  kept  only  by  driving  all  other  competitors  from  the 
field.     The  monopoly  is  only  artificial,  not  real. 

It  will  be  objected  by  union  leaders  that  it  is  their  policy 
•  to  gather  every  laborer  into  the  union,  and  thus  eventually 
control  all  the  supply  in  an  invincible  monopoly.  The  un- 
ions, however,  although  the  practice  varies,  do  not  admit 
all  comers.  But,  if  all  laborers  were  unionists,  the  situa- 
tions would  be  the  same,  as  regards  supply,  as  if  there  were 
no  unions.  In  that  case,  could  the  unions  maintain  the 
"union  scale"  of  wages?  Not  if  the  union  scale  is  above  the 
market  rate.  If  the  whole  supply  of  laborers  is  thus  intro- 
duced into  the  field  of  employment,  then  the  rate  of  wages 
for  all  in  any  one  occupation  can  never  be  more  than  that 
rate  which  will  warrant  the  employment  of  all — that  is,  the 
market  rate.  Also  wholly  aside  from  the  influence  of  de- 
mand, in  order  to  control  the  rate  of  wages,  the  unions 
which  include  all  laborers  must  effectually  control,  not  only 
immigration,  but  also  the  birth-rate.  The  impossibility  of 
such  a  control  everyone  knows.  Hence  there  is  little  hope 
for  permanently  higher  wages  by  this  method  of  action. 

6.  The  outcome  of  such  an  attitude  has  been  a  series  of 
acts  of  violence  which  have  shocked  the  civilized  world. 

Inasmuch  as  the  unions,  particularly  those  composed  of 
the  unskilled  classes,  contain  only  a  fraction  of  the  available 
labor  force,  the  existence  of  a  large  body  of  non-union  men 
is  a  rock  of  offense  standing  in  the  way  of  the  demands 
for  a  rate  of  wages,  above  that  market  price  at  which  all 
of  the  supply  would  be  employed.  Hence  a  passionate 
hatred  of  the  non-union  man,  or  "scab,"  who  is  charged  with 
being  a  traitor  to  his  class,  if  he  accepts  less  than  the  union 
scale.  Although*  possessing  only  a  partial  monopoly,  the 
unions  act  as  if  they  had  a  complete  monopoly  of  the  labor 


TRADE  UNIONS  217 

supply;  and,  in  spite  of  certain  failure,  they  have  created  a 
code  of  ethics  which  justifies  any  act,  whether  illegal  or  un- 
just, which  helps  to  maintain  the  artificial  monopoly.  The 
whole  point  of  the  union  demand  is  admittedly  that  the 
"union  scale"  is  above  the  market  rate  fixed  by  open  com- 
petition. Obviously  the  union  rate  can  be  maintained  only 
by  limiting  the  supply  of  labor  to  members  of  the  union  and 
by  driving  out  the  non-union  competitors.  Consequently, 
the  inevitable  outcome  of  the  present  policy  of  many  labor 
organizations  is  lawlessness,  and  an  array  of  power  against 
the  state.  Having  only  an  artificial  monopoly  of  labor, 
their  purposes  can  be  successfully  carried  out  only  by  force 
and  intimidation. 

An  account  of  the  brutal  war  carried  on  between  union 
and  non-union  men  would  form  very  unhappy  chapters  in 
the  life  of  oiir  people.  It  calls  forth  the  lowest  passions  of 
men  who  have  not  yet  found  the  way  to  any  moral  growth; 
and,  worst  of  all,  it  seems  to  befog  the  ethical  vision  of 
those  who  have  had  full  opportunity  for  knowing  what  is 
right  and  wrong,  and  what  is  good  and  bad  for  the  state. 
The  great  mass  of  the  laboring  body  are  honest  and  law- 
abiding;  the  responsibility  for  the  erroneous  policy  and  its 
criminal  consequences  must  be  placed  on  their  leaders,  and 
on  some  economic  advisers  who  have  more  heart  than 
brains.  The  crux  of  the  whole  matter  is  in  the  incomplete 
control  of  the  supply  of  labor  by  the  unions. 

It  is  an  indisputable  fact  today  that,  if  law  and  order 
were  enforced,  if  an  employer  were  allowed  without  hin- 
drance to  hire  any  man  he  chose,  if  these'  men  could  go 
peacefully  to  work  and  be  unmolested  in  the  streets,  if  their 
families  were  not  boycotted,  a  strike  would  almost  never 
succeed.  This  is  due  to  two  things:  (i)  the  large  supply  of 
competing  labor;  and  (2)  the  fact  that  the  very  general  in- 
troduction of  machinery  into  all  industries  has  reduced  the 
necessity  of  having  especially  skilled  men  in  as  many  pro- 
cesses as  before.  "A  non-union  contractor,  with  his  lower 
wages  and  imported  labor,  would  soon  drive  the  union  con- 
tractor out  of  business."  "The  non-unionist  is  always  the 
danger  to  the  wage  scale."  There  is  no  doubt  upon  this 
point.     It  is  therefore  sheer  stupidity  to  keep  on  trying  to 


2i8  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

force  the  adoption  of  the  union  scale  with  no  control  over 
the  whole  supply  of  labor.  It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  non- 
union man  that  he  must  accommodate  himself  to  the  mar- 
ket conditions  of  labor.  He  is  a  human  being;  and  he  has 
rights  as  well  as  union  men.  Moreover,  non-union  men  can 
soon  better  the  output  of  union  men  who  restrict  product. 
In  certain  shops  in  Chicago  making  printing-presses,  heavy 
conveying  machinery,  sewing-machines,  machine  tools, 
steam  valves,  mill  and  mining  machinery,  and  the  like,  a 
strike  threw  out  of  employment  some  1,500  of  presumably 
skilled  workers.  Almost  immediately  the  shops  were  filled 
with  new  men,  few  of  whom  had  ever  done  this  kind  of 
work.  Within  three  months,  with  the  same  hours  per  day, 
the  green  hands  equaled  or  exceeded  the  output  of  those 
who  had  had  years  of  experience.  In  fact,  the  potential  adap- 
tability and  ingenuity  of  the  great  body  of  American  la- 
borers must  always  be  taken  into  account,  as  well  as  the 
fact  of  the  whole  supply. 

In  short,  the  unions  act  as  if  an  increase  in  the  rate  of 
wages  could  be  determined  by  demands  upon  the  employ- 
ers, when  in  reality  it  is  prevented  by  the  actual  facts  of  the 
supply  of  labor.  Under  these  conditions  the  necessity  of 
intimidating  non-union  men,  of  catching  employers  at  a 
critical  emergency  when  refusal  is  well-nigh  impossible  on 
any  grounds,  has  become  a  fine  art. 

7.  Finally,  as  a  result  of  an  erroneous  theory  of  unions, 
there  has  grown  up  a  body  of  unwise  and  brutal  leaders, 
demanded  by  the  futile  policy  of  an  indefensible  monopoly. 
Wrong-headed  leaders  are  the  inevitable  consequence  of  a 
wrongly  devised  theory  of  unionism. 

There  has  thus  been  created  a  situation  out  of  which  has 
arisen  a  dangerous  class  of  labor  leaders.  It  is  not  claimed 
that  all  leaders  are  of  this  kind — far  from  it.  But  the  situa- 
tion— wrong  and  artificial  though  it  is — demands  a  leader 
who  will  not  stop  at  anything  to  gain  his  point.  "Peaceful 
picketing"  has  become  only,  a  synonym  for  threats  of  vio- 
lence. For  a  long  time  it  has  been  believed  that  unions 
employed  professional  thugs  to  intimidate  "scabs"  and  em- 
ployers; but  recently  this  has  been  carried  on  openly.  The 
funds  have  been  appropriated  under  the  head  of  "educational 


TRADE  UNIONS  219 

methods."  In  fact,  picketing,  boycotts,  breaking  heads,  even 
murder,  have  been  resorted  to,  to  carry  out  the  demands 
of  the  union,  based  on  a  theory  that  is  economically  inde- 
fensible. "I  do  not  consider  anything,"  says  C.  P.  Shea, 
president  of  the  International  Brotherhood  of  Teamsters,  "a 
violation  of  an  agreement  that  is  done  to  uphold  the  prin- 
ciples of  trades-unionism."  He  represents  the  w^orst  type 
of  labor  leader. 

^  It  is  a  sad  outlook  for  the  honest  majority  of  the  laboring 
class.  They  are  not  to  blame.  Untrained  in  economic  an- 
alysis, they  necessarily  trust  themselves  .to  the  policy  set  by 
their  leaders.  Among  these  there  are  many  notable  excep- 
tions— men  of  character  and  force;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  some  dishonorable,  unscrupulous,  lecherous  and 
pig-headed  men,  who  would  be  a  disgrace  to  any  penal  col- 
ony. Corrupt  leaders  of  this  sort  threaten  employers  with 
strikes  and  obtain  "blackmail"  which  is  appropriated  for 
their  personal  use  and  indulgence.  The  ignorance,  lack  of 
business  habits,  and  helplessness  of  the  laboring  classes  has 
been  seized  upon  by  clever  and  designing  men  as  a  means  of 
fattening  their  own  purses,  and  getting  the  resources  for 
the  indulgence  of  their  lowest  vices.  Leaders  of  this  sort, 
who  would  never  be  trusted  with  a  dollar  in  business  life, 
find  themselves  in  possession  of  tremendous  power  over  the 
prosperity  of  great  industrial  concerns,  over  the  convenience 
of  the  public,  and  over  the  very  security  of  women  and 
children  in  the  highways  and  busy  streets  of  the  community. 
They  will  even  embezzle  the  union  funds — contributed  pain- 
fully in  small  sums  by  the  men  who  toil — and  join  in 
schemes  for  looting  other  union  treasuries,  by  calling  strikes. 
Unscrupulous  employers  have  not  been  slow  to  see  how  to 
use  such  men  for  their  own  interest;  and  a  group  of  em- 
ployers in  agreement  with  a  group  of  unions  have  formed  a 
combination  to  monopolize  the  work  and  trade  in  certain 
occupations. 

Nor  has  the  bad  influence  of  such  leaders  ended  here. 
They  have  not  hesitated  to  solidify  their  positions  by  bar- 
gains with  local  political  managers  to  deliver  the  vote  of  the 
unions  to  certain  tickets.  In  some  cities  the  mayor,  who  is 
dependent  on   the   labor  vote   for  his  re-election,   has   been 


220  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

put  under  such  pressure  by  these  leaders  that  the  police 
force  has  been  kept  from  preserving  order  when  the  union 
men  are  assaulting  "scabs."  In  ways  such  as  these,  acts  of 
violence  and  forms  of  rioting  are  tolerated  or  winked  at, 
which  are  a  disgrace  to  civilized  society.  And  the  effect  of 
such  doings  are  far-reaching.  When  youths  of  the  laboring 
class  observe  that  arrogance,  bluff,  and  the  appearance  of 
force  are  a  sufficient  protection  for  inefficiency  or  even  for 
crime  they  are  not  likely  to  grow  up  with  a  respect  for  the 
law. 

Nothing  more  than  the  above  seems  to  be  needed  to 
show  to  anyone  of  common-sense  that  something  is  wrong 
with  the  case  of  the  labor  unions.  Therefore  it  is  now 
high  time  to  present  the  case  of  the  defendants — higher 
wages — and  to  ask  the  court  of  last  resort — the  Court  of 
Public  Opinion — to  overrule  the  false  contentions  of  the 
unions,  and  to  order  an  obedience  to  the  principles  which 
will  not  only  insure  higher  wages  now,  but  also  provide  a 
steady  rise  in  the  wages  of  future  generations.  In  behalf  of 
higher  wages  I  here  submit  the  following  arguments: 

I.  Productivity,  or  efficiency,  is  a  reason  for  higher 
wages.  To  all  students  of  economics  this  proposition  has 
long  been  familiar;  and  why  it  has  not  been  taken  up  and 
adopted  by  the  labor  unions  is  passing  strange.  Perhajjs  it 
reveals  better  than  anything  else  the  unfortunate  unwilling- 
ness of  certain  groups  of  persons  to  train  themselves  in 
economics,  and  it  shows  their  habit  of  reading  only  the 
literature  which  supports  their  preconceived  opinions.  The 
mental  attitude  of  many  persons  is  not  one  of  inquiry  and 
fipen-mindedness,  but  one  of  rigidity  and  narrowness  quite 
mediccval. 

As  long  ago  as  Ricardo — and  it  was  clearly  expressed  by 
John  Stuart  Mill — it  was  explained  that  an  increase  of  pro- 
ductivity on  the  part  of  a  laborer  was  a  reason  why  wages 
could  be  increased  without  reducing  the  profits  of  the  em- 
ployer; while  in  recent  literature,  from  F.  A.  Walker  to  J. 
B.  Clark,  the  whole  emphasis  has  been  put  upon  the  produc- 
tivity of  labor  as  the  explanation  of  the  causes  of  the  fluctua- 
tions in  wages;  increase  productivity  and  wages  rise.  This 
is  not  an  abstruse,  or  difficult  statement;  it  is  only  another 


TRADE  UNIONS  221 

way  of  saying  that  a  skilled  man  gets  more  than  an  un- 
skilled man.  Every  man's  experience  will  bear  testimony 
as  to  the  truth  of  this  proposition. 

Now,  having  reached  a  general  truth,  based  not  only 
upon  the  thinking  of  the  best  economists,  but  also  upon  a 
common  experience  of  all  men,  we  may  next  ask:  What  is 
the  explanation  of  this  fact?  In  other  words,  why  should 
increased  productivity  bring  increased  wages?  Productivity,' 
it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  is  the  power  to  add  to  the 
quantity  of  product  turned  out  in  any  industry,  or  to  im- 
prove the  quality  of  the  article.  The  point  then,  is:  Why 
is  productivity  worth  more  to  the  employer?  The  answer 
is  as  plain  as  day:  Because,  on  merely  selfish  grounds,  the 
employer  will  pay  more  for  labor  which  returns  better  re- 
sults in  product,  for  exactly  the  same  reason  that  any  man 
will  pay  more  for  a  good  horse  than  a  poor  one.  Or,  in 
the  language  of  the  economists,  the  thing  which  yields  the 
greater  utility,  or  satisfaction,  will  have  the  stronger  de- 
mand, and — other  things  being  equal — will  bear  the  higher 
price. 

2.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the 
brightest  minds  in  the  economic  world,  who  have  devoted 
their  lives  to  the  study  of  the  causes  of  wages.  Have  these 
conclusions  been  adopted  by  the  labor  unions  as  the  basis 
of  their  conduct?  If  not,  are  the  leaders  of  the  unions,  such 
as  Shea,  Driscoll,  "Skinny"  Madden,  and  the  like,  better 
fitted  by  brains,  study,  and  experience  to  lay  down  the  ac- 
tion of  unionists  than  these  others  I  have  just  mentioned? 
Evidently  they  think  they  are;  and  they  have  proceeded  to 
enforce  the  futile  theory  of  an  artificial  supply  of  the  mar- 
ket— when,  in  reality,  the  supply  cannot  be  controlled.  The 
assumption  must  inevitably  be  that  the  headstrong,  self- 
seeking,  brutal  leader  who  freely  counsels  slugging  and  mur- 
der, is  not  a  safe  investigator  into  the  principles  regulating 
wages. 

And  let  me  say  here  that  I  am  not  arguing  against  un- 
ions, which  are  a  power  to  the  workmen.  I  am  speaking, 
not  against  unionism  itself — which  I  believe  in — but  against 
the  abuses  and  mistakes  of  unionism. 

3.  If  it  be  seen  that,  owing  to  the  existing  large  number 


222  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

of  non-union  men,  the  unions  always  have  had  trouble  in 
gaining  their  demands,  what  is  to  be  done?  How  can  union- 
ists escape  the  inevitable  competition  of  non-union  men 
whose  numbers  keep  down  wages?  Remember  that  I  am 
making  a  ^ea  solely  in  the  interests  of  higher  wages,  be- 
lieving that  the  unions  are  unfortunately  working  against 
that  result,  because  of  a  limited  understanding  of  the  prin- 
ciples by  which  wages  can  be  raised.  The  escape  from  the 
influence  of  over-supply,  let  me  insist,  can  be  effected  solely 
by  adopting  the  principle  of  productivity.  By  making  en- 
trance to  a  union  dependent  solely  on  efficiency  in  adding 
to  production;  by  seriously  setting  to  work  to  improve  the 
quality  of  their  workmanship;  by  furnishing  the  latest  in- 
formation to  members  as  to  new  devices,  and  new  tricks  by 
which  dexterity,  efficiency,  and  product  can  be  increased; 
by  systematically  aiming  to  reduce  friction  with  employers; 
by  putting  a  premium  upon  honesty,  sobriety,  punctuality, 
and  steadiness — by  these,  and  countless  other  ways  which 
need  not  be  mentioned,  the  membership  can  be  made  a 
picked  body  into  which  no  shiftless,  drunken,  incompetent, 
or  trouble-making  man  can  gain  admission.  These  latter  must 
drop  into  the  class  of  non-union  men;  and  thus  we  should 
have  a  readjustment  of  laborers,  by  a  natural  and  just  evo- 
lution, in  which  union  men  are  the  exponents  of  produc- 
tivity, and  favored  by  employers,  while  the  non-union  men 
are  the  inferior  class  who  are  no  longer  capable  of  com- 
petition with  unionists. 

4.  It  is  next  in  order  to  emphasize  one  element  of  pro- 
ductivity which  is  of  pre-eminent  importance.  A  sympathetic 
relation  and  a  helpful  attitude  between  laborers  and  employ- 
ers is  an  absolute  essential  to  productivity.  If  two  men  are 
rowing  in  the  same  boat,  can  they  afford  to  waste  their 
strength  in  pulling  in  opposite  directions?  But  that  would 
be  no  more  absurd  than  the  violent  struggles  of  today  be- 
tween employees  and  employers.  The  very  first  thing  to  do 
is  to  get  together,  and  to  stop  fighting  each  other.  An 
antagonistic  attitude  is  wholly  asinine.  On  the  part  of  la- 
borers, let  them  say  to  employers:  What  is  there  that  we 
can  do  to  increase  the  units  of  product,  reduce  the  cost  of 
manufacture,  and  help  in  increasing  the  sales?     And,  if  we 


TRADE  UNIONS  223 

join  you  in  these  improvements,  what  consideration  will  you 
allow  us,  apart  from  the  gains  of  living  peacefully  together? 
On  the  side  of  employers,  also,  an  improved  attitude  is 
necessary.  The  employers  have  very  often  been  thinking 
selfishly  only  of  increasing  their  personal  fortunes  at  the 
expense  of  their  laborers;  they  have  taken  all  they  could 
get,  and  have  given  nothing  in  return;  they  have  failed  to 
reward  increased  efficiency,  and  have  done  many  things 
superciliously  to  hurt  the  self-respect  and  manhood  of  their 
operatives.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  make  a  point  of  re- 
warding increased  efficiency,  of  picking  out  men  who  have 
done  most  to  add  to  productivity,  they  will  unmistakably 
raise  the  morale  of  their  force,  and  meet,  in  the  end,  with 
a  general  response  from  their  men.  These  things,  however, 
cannot  be  accomplished  in  a  day.  At  present  there  is  an 
armed  neutrality  and  suspicion  on  bqth  sides,  which  must 
be  banished  by  intelligence  and  good  feeling.  But  let  me 
repeat  that  some  employers  must  learn  a  new  spirit  of  help- 
fulness if  they  wish  to  escape  labor  difficulties. 

5.  Before  a  better  understanding  can  be  brought  about 
on  both  sides,  one  subject  of  more  or  less  difficulty  must  be 
threshed  out.  If  you  advise  the  laboring  body  to  increase 
their  productivity,  they  will  reply:  "What  is  the  use  of  add- 
ing to  the  employer's  output,  if  we  get  nothing  for  it?" 
Now,  as  to  this,  we  must  frankly  admit  the  presence  among 
us  of  some  employers  who  do  not  always  know  what  is  for 
their  own  interest;  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  for  any  length 
of  time,  or  by  many  men,  the  improved  quality,  or  quantity, 
of  product  in  any  establishment,  could  remain  unrecognized. 
There  are  stupid  employers  just  as  there  are  stupid  laborers. 
But  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  emphatically,  from  my  own 
knowledge  of  manufacturing  establishments,  that  the  em- 
ployer who  does  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  the  more  pro- 
ductive employee,  and  reward  him  accordingly,  does  not 
know  properly  how  to  manage  his  own  business,  and  must 
inevitably  go  to  the  wall  in  the  competition  with  his  rivals 
who  do  know.  In  these  days  few  people  realize  the  grind- 
ing, eager,  intense,  and  minute  competition  which  goes  on 
between  producers  in  the  same  business.  It  is  about  as  im- 
possible for  a  laborer  who  looks  out  for  his  own  interests. 


224  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

to  escape   being  rewarded   for  growing   efficiency,   as   for  a 
man  who  is  honest  to  escape  the  respect  of  his  neighbors. 

But,  if  there  is  the  slightest  difficulty  in  obtaining  this 
recognition  for  increased  efficiency,  it  is  precisely  at  this 
point  that  the  pressure  of  intelligent  unionism  should  be 
applied.  If  the  unions  wish  to  enforce  payment  in  propor- 
tion to  the  productivity  of  laborers,  their  success  will  be 
quick  and  easy  as  compared  with  some  of  the  present  at- 
tempts to  insist  on  the  same  uniform  rate  of  wages  for  all 
alike,  competent  or  incompetent.  The  failure  of  many 
strikes,  and  the  antagonism  of  employers,  is  the  inevitable 
consequence  of  a  blind  pressure  for  higher  wages,  quite  in- 
dependent of  the  differing  productivity  of  different  laborers, 
and  their  eflfect  on  the  total  output.  It  is  about  as  silly  to 
suppose  that  a  business  house  could  afford  to  pay  all  their 
salesmen  the  same  wages,  irrespective  of  the  amount  of 
sales  made  by  each  man,  as  to  suppose  that  each  of  a  hun- 
dred, or  of  a  thousand,  men  should  be  paid  equal  rates  of 
wages,  irrespective  of  their  addition  to  the  general  result. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  every  well-conducted  business  today  has 
a  record  of  the  cost  of  every  sort,  in  each  separate  depart- 
ment of  its  works,  and  can  immediately  recognize  the  ef- 
ficiency of  any  particular  part  of  its  force.  And  it  is  also  a 
fact  that  those  establishments  which  have  the  least  trouble 
with  their  employees  have  adopted  a  system  by  which  in- 
dividuals are  rewarded  for  improved  work,  for  suggestions 
as  to  improvements  and  inventions,  and  for  anything  which 
will  cheapen  the  output,  or  increase  the  sales. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  make  a  plea  for  tolerance  of  the 
man  at  the  bottom  of  the  ladder.  He  may  be  narrow;  he 
may  be  uneducated;  he  may  be  unable  to  reason  correctly 
from  the  limited  data  at  his  disposal;  he  may  not  know 
much  of  the  trials  and  difficulties  of  running  a  great  busi- 
ness; but,  in  the  main,  he  is  a  man  who  responds  to  fair 
and  reasonable  treatment;  he  will,  in  most  cases,  do  the 
right  thing,  if  he  sees  it  plainly.  Honor,  honesty,  and  fair- 
ness are  as  common  in  him  as  in  the  man  of  any  other 
class.  Therefore,  a  responsibility  lies  upon  the  intelligent 
and  helpful  class  in  the  community  to  do  all  that  in  them 
lies  to  enable  him  to  see  the  labor  question  in  its  true  light. 


TRADE  UNIONS  225 

His  acts  should  be  judged  in  the  Hght  of  his  means  of 
reaching  just  conclusions,  and  not  as  if  he  had  all  the 
knowledge  and  wisdom  of  society.  He  needs  light  and  dis- 
interested help  in  solving  his  hard  problem  of  how  to  get 
on  in  life,  quite  as  much  as  he  needs  higher  wages. 


McCIure's.   22:   30-43.   November,   1903. 
Trust's   New  Tool — the  Labor  Boss.     Ray   Stannard   Baker. 

After  four  months  of  struggle,  costing  untold  millions  of 
dollars,  the  building  strike  in  New  York  has  at  last  worn 
itself  out.  Sam  Parks,  the  union  leader,  broken  down  by 
an  incurable  disease,  convicted  of  blackmail,  is  awaiting  sure 
return  to  State's  Prison  at  Sing  Sing.  The  men  are  at  work 
again;  the  employers  are  counting  their  losses;  the  public 
draws  a  long  breath  of  relief, — the  public  really  believes  that 
somethmg  has  been  settled. 

Sam  Parks,  indeed,  has  been  settled;  he  will  ride  his 
white  horse  at  the  head  of  no  more  labor  parades;  he  will 
'■pull  out"  no  more  "jobs."  Nine-tenths  of  the  people  of 
New  York  fully  and  earnestly  believe  that  Sam  Parks  and 
his  friends  were  the  chief  cause  of  the  strike.  Many  of  the 
employing  builders  and  not  a  few  of  the  union  workmen 
themselves,  closely  familiar  with  all  the  conditions,  will 
assert  the  same  conviction. 

Well,  if  Sam  Parks  has  really  blocked  for  months  the 
building  industry  of  the  greatest  American  city  in  the  time 
of  its  most  spectacular  growth — and  that  at  a  time  when 
there  was  no  dispute  between  employer  and  employee  as  to 
wages,  or  hours,  or  recognition  of  the  union;  when  the 
workmen  were  never  better  paid,  never  so  thoroughly  or- 
ganized, never  more  independent — then  this  man  Parks  is 
surely  worth  knowing.  It  is  an  irresistible  conclusion  that 
he  must  either  be  a  genius  of  extraordinary  force  or  else  he 
must  have  represented  some  vital  basic  condition  or  prin- 
ciple, which,  in  the  inevitable  expression  of  itself,  forced  up- 
ward from  the  mass  the  strong  man  who  best  represented 
it.  Is  Parks  the  god  in  the  machine  or  is  he  the  tool  in 
some  mightier  hand? 


226  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

IV ho  is  Sam  Parks  f 

Who  is  this  Parks?  Last  May  his  name,  now  grown  to 
such  resounding  importance,  had  never  been  heard  outside 
of  a  limited  circle  of  the  building  industries  in  New  'York 
City.  He  is  one  of  the  four  walking  delegates  or  business 
agents  of  the  Housesmiths'  and  Bridgemen's  Union.  For 
many  terms  now  he  has  been  duly  elected  by  his  4,500  fel- 
low workmen  to  conduct  their  collective  business  with  their 
employers  in  New  York.  All  unions  have  such  an  officer — 
a  paid  agent  receiving,  usually,  the  wages  of  an  ordinary 
workman  in  the  trade — a  necessary,  useful,  important  officer, 
recognized  and  favored  by  employers  as  well  as  by  work- 
men. The  walking  delegate  is  supposed  to  be  strictly  ac- 
countable to  his  union,  to  make  full  reports  at  each  meet- 
ing, and  to  receive  instructions  as  to  what  he  shall  do  in  the 
intervals  between  meeting  days  of  the  union.  I  say  he  is 
"supposed  to  be  accountable,"  and  in  the  best  unions  he 
really  is  accountable;  in  the  HousesmithsV  however,  Sam 
Parks  was  delegate. 

As  one  of  the  representatives  of  his  union  Sam  Parks 
had  a  seat  and  a  vote  in  the  6oard  of  Building  Trades,  a 
central  body  composed  of  walking  delegates  from  each  of 
thirty-nine  trades  connected  with  the  New  York  building 
industry.  This  body  was  supposed  to  discuss  questions 
looking  to  the  betterment  of  conditions  among  all  em- 
ployees on  buildings,  to  settle  disputes  between  unions,  and, 
on  occasion,  to  enforce  the  demand  of  any  one  union  there 
represented  by  a  sympathetic  strike  of  all  the  other  unions; 
it  was  also  supposed  to  be  wholly  under  the  direction  of  the 
great  body  of  unionists  which  it  represented. 

The  JValkitig  Delegate  in  Theory  and  in  Fact 

In  short,  this  organization  was  built  upon  the  lines  of  our 
political  system.  Here  was  the  delegate  elected  to  repre- 
sent the  wishes  of  his  constituents,  here  was  the  congress 
composed  of  these  representatives.  A  visitor  from  Mars, 
examining  the  wise  constitutions  and  by-laws  of  these  un- 
ions and  this  central  body,  might  conclude  that  we  had 
reached  the  millennium  of  perfection  in  the  self-government 


TRADE  UNIONS  227 

of  our  workingmen.  When  Mr.  Steffens  went  to  Phila- 
delphia they  showed  him  with  pride  their  magnificent  city 
charter,  perfect  in  every  regulation,  a  model  for  the  nations: 
but  Philadelphia,  none  the  less,  is  the  worst  governed  city 
in  America  if  not  in  the  civilized  world.  The  difficulty  with 
constitutions  and  by-laws  is  that  they  regulate  everything 
except  human  nature. 

According  to  all  the  rules,  Sam  Parks,  the  faithful  serv- 
ant of  his  constituents,  was  worrying  along  on  the  wages 
of  an  iron-worker,  reporting  regularly  to  his  union,  taking 
his  instructions  with  earnest  meekness,  meeting  the  employ- 
ers in  the  quiet,  dignified  manner  of  a  business  man,  and 
never  calling  strikes  when  there  was  any  other  way  out. 

In  reality,  however,  Sam  Parks  was  riding  about  in  his 
cab,  wearing  diamonds,  appearing  on  the  street  with  his 
blooded  bulldog,  supporting  his  fast  horses,  "treating",  his 
friends.  How  this  reminds  one  of  the  familiar,  affluent 
aldermen  or  police  captains  of  our  cities  building  $50,000 
residences  on  salaries  of  $1,500  or  less  and  living  happily 
ever  after*! 

Robbing  His   Union 

And  this  man,  elected  to  carry  out  the  instructions  of 
his  union,  actually  reversed  the  process  and  bossed  the  un- 
ion. His  four  thousand  iron-workers  obeyed  like  children. 
He  called  strikes  when  and  where  he  pleased,  often  deigning 
to  give  the  men  no  reason  why  they  were  called  out;  he 
spent  the  money  of  the  union  lavishly  and  made  no  ac- 
counting. Once,  when  an  overbold  member  ventured  to 
inquire  in  open  meeting  what  had  become  of  a  certain  sum 
of  money.  Parks  replied  by  hurling  a  table  at  him.  Several 
others  who  opposed  him  were  "beaten  up"  in  near-by  sa- 
loons. Others  mysteriously  lost  their  jobs.  When  a  man 
disagreed  with  him,  he  "gave  him  a  belt  on  the  jaw,"  as  he 
has  said,  "and  that  cleared  his  mind."  Of  $60,000  received 
in  fees  and  dues  by  the  union  in  1901,  over  $40,000  disap- 
peared without  detailed  accounting,  mostly  Under  Parks' 
direction.  Of  $75,000  received  in  1902,  some  $60,000  was 
spent  practically  without  accounting.  What  these  great 
sums  went  for    (strikes.    Parks   said,  vaguely),   no   one  but 


228  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Parks  really  knew,  and  he  wouldn't  tell.  Every  member  «»f 
the  union  knew  the  exact  character  of  Parks,  that  he  was  a 
"grafter" — and  yet  he  could  not  be  displaced.  Even  alter 
being  arrested  for  blackmail,  he  was  reelected  by  his  union; 
when  he  went  to  State's  Prison  his  salary  as  walking  dele- 
gate was  continued,  and  when  he  was  released  under  Court 
orders  he  marched  at  the  head  of  the  Labor  Day  para<lc, 
cheered  by  his  followers. 

Blackmailing  Employers 

But  the  money  he  received  from  the  union  treasury  prob- 
ably did  not  equal  the  amount  he  got  from  the  employers. 
Behold  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  builders  and  manuiac- 
turers  of  large  interests  summoned  by  this  former  coal- 
heaver  to  come  to  his  house  or  to  the  saloon  of  his  appoint- 
ment and  pay  him  two  hundred  or  nine  hundred  or  two 
thousand  dollars  for  his  personal  use  to  secure  permission 
ot  go  on  with  their  business!  This  happened  not  once,  but 
many  times,  as  the  evidence  presented  to  District  Attorney 
Jerome  has  abundantly  shown.  And  if  a  builder  was  re- 
calcitrant his  jobs  were  "struck"  and  the  men  kept  out  until 
he  "settled." 

I  am  not  entering  here  into  the  question  of  the  justice  of 
these  strikes;  some  of  them  may  have  been  warranted;  I 
suspect  they  were;  but  the  point  is  that  Sam  Parks  and 
other  men  of  his  type  called  them  without  consulting  any- 
thing but  their  own  personal  pleasure,  with  no  instructions 
from  their  unions,  often  without  giving  any  reasons  to  the 
men  who  were  thus  compelled  to  lie  idle,  and,  worse  still, 
strikes  were  often  accompanied  by  a  demand  for  money  or 
to  enforce  payment  of  money.  Did  this  money  go  to  the 
men  who  struck  and  lost  their  wages?  Not  a  bit  of  it; 
they  won  the  battle.  Parks  pocketed  the  spoils,  though  he 
sometimes  spent  it  liberally  "setting  up"  for  his  friends  at 
near-by  bars.     I  heard  a  housesmith  say: 

"Sam  Parks  is  good-hearted  all  right;  if  he  takes  graft 
he  spends  it  with  the  boys." 

A  curious  conception,  surely,  of  good-heartedness,  but 
one  that  is  already  familiar  in  political  circles:  robbmg  his 


TRADE  UNIONS  229 

constituents  of  their  rights  and  perhaps  of  their  wages,  he 
is  "good-hearted"  because  he  treats  some  of  them  to  beer! 

How  the  Graft  was  Worked 

We  find  Parks  approaching  the  superintendent  of  the 
Hecla  Iron  Works,  of  Brooklyn,  by  appointment  in  a  saloon. 

"You've  never  done  anything  for  the  walking  delegates," 
he  remarked.     "Ain't  it  about  time?" 

He  accused  the  company  of  violating  certain  union  rules, 
but  said  he  "would  leave  them  alone  for  $1,000."  They  gave 
him  two  minutes  to  get  out,  and  he  used  the  time;  then  he 
called  strikes  which  cost  the  company  some  $50,000  and 
threw  1,200  men  out  of  work  for  weeks.  President  Poulsen 
finally  tried  to  make  terms,  meeting  Parks  by  appointment: 

"I'm  it;  you  pay  me,"  said  Parks.  "You  can  go  to 
work  when  you  pay  Sam  Parks." 

"What  about  the  men  who  are  striking?"  asked  Mr.  Poul- 
sen. 

"To  hell  with  those  "  responded  this  leader,  con- 
cerning his  constituents. 

Without  entering  into  the  many  complications  of  the 
case,  which  have  no  real  bearing  on  the  attitude  of  our 
hero,  the  Hecla  people  finally  paid  Parks  $2,000  and  the 
men  were  allowed  to  go  back  to  work.  I  am  not  saying 
that  this  money  was  blackmail,  nor  a  bribe,  nor  that  it  was 
not  a  just  payment  for  "waiting  time."  Confusion  here 
exists  in  definitions  that  must  be  settled  in  the  courts.  But 
of  one  thing  we  are  certain :  Parks  got  the  money ;  the 
check  endorsed  by  him  is  now  in  the  hands  of  District  At- 
torney Jerome.  Owing,  however,  to  the  publicity  given  the 
case,  the  union  is  reported  really  to  have  received  some  of 
this  money — after  Parks  had  been  provided  with  a  diamond 
ring  bearing  the  legend  "Victory,  Strike  Hecla  Iron  Works." 

The  Croker  of  the  Building  Trades 

And,  truly,  the  more  closely  one  examines  the  situation 
the  more  striking  the  parallel  between  the  government  of 
the  trade  unions  and  our  politics.  We  have  to-day  the 
Labor  Boss  and  the  Industrial  Machine  in  many  unions  (the 
germs   of  them   in  all)    with   much   the   power  and  founded 


230  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

on  exactly  the  same  basic  defects  that  we  find  in  our  polit- 
ical organizations.  Why  not?  The  union  is  a  voluntary 
elective  association  and  its  offices  are  prized  places.  We 
find  it,  therefore,  subject  to  all  the  approved  American  elec- 
tioneering methods.  Sam  Parks  is  the  Croker  of  the  build- 
ing trades.  Other  bosses  there  are  in  other  trades:  Carvill 
of  the  derrick-men,  for  instance,  who  was  second  only  to 
Parks  in  his  appetite  for  the  money  of  the  employers,  and 
Murphy  of  the  stone-cutters,  who  stole  $27,000  of  the  union's 
money  and  is  now  in  Sing  Sing.  There  was  a  ring  in  most 
of  the  unions  and  a  ring  in  the  Board  of  Delegates,  just  as 
there  are  little  political  bosses  in  the  election  districts  and  a 
big  boss  in  Tammany. 

In  the  first  place  the  union  is  composed  of  the  same  ele- 
ments as  the  political  party — of  American  citizens,  the  ma- 
jority of  whom,  perhaps,  are  honest,  intelligent,  conserva- 
tive and  well-to-do,  but  also  too  often  criminally  selfish, 
stupid,  willing  to  be  led  by  the  nose  so  long  as  their  busi- 
ness is  not  disturbed.  This  majority  in  politics  does  not  go 
to  the  party  primary,  often  does  not  vote;  in  the  union  it 
does  not  attend  the  meetings,  takes  no  interest.  Of  4,500 
members  of  the  Housesmiths'  Union  there  were  rarely  500 
in  attendance  at  a  meeting,  and  never,  even  at  important 
elections,  anywhere  near  the  full  number.  Mannerchor  Hall, 
where  the  union  met,  does  not  seat  comfortably  600  men. 
As  a  result  the  business  was  conducted  by  a  very  small 
minority,  composed  largely,  as  in  the  political  organization, 
of  the  young,  unattached  fellows,  the  out-of-work,  and  those 
who  would  rather  play  politics  than  drive  rivets.  The  other 
men,  the  workers,  some  of  whom  lived  twenty-five  miles 
from  the  meeting  hall,  were  tired  at  night  and  wanted  to  go 
home  and  play  with  their  babies.  Oh,  it  is  the  old  familiar 
American  story,  bragging  that  we  can  govern  ourselves, 
and  then  not  governing. 

.in  Honest  Labor  Leader  Helpless 

The  real  quality  of  the  majority  of  the  housesmiths  finds 
expression  in  the  election  and  reelection  of  a  thoroughly 
honest  and  able  president,  Robert  Neidig,  who,  in  the  face 
of  threats   of   personal   injury    and   loss   of  work,    has    mar- 


TRADE  UNIONS  231 

shalled  a  steady  opposition  to  Parks.  Neidig  has  taken  high 
grounds  of  civic  patriotism. 

"I  have  got  to  be  a  union  man,"  he  says.  "Should  I  let 
the  union  run  itself,  and  not  attend  meetings  because  I  do 
not  like  its  methods,  or  should  I  turn  in  and  do  my  best  to 
help  change  the  methods?" 

And  Neidig  really  has  done  his  best,  working  patiently 
without  a  cent  of  salary,  though  he  has  not  succeeded  in 
arousing  the  honest  majority  to  overthrow  the  Boss.  So 
our  political  parties  elect  some  fine,  honest,  ingenuous,  not 
over  energetic  man  as  mayor  or  governor  and  "point  with 
pride"  to  him,  while  the  Boss  stands  behind  him  grinning, 
runs  everything,  and  steals  the  people  poor. 

A  Boss  cannot  come  to  power  unless  he  really  does 
something  to  help  his  party,  his  union.  After  all,  his  sway 
must  have  some  basis  of  good  service.  It  is  Parks  who  is 
chiefly  chedited  with  the  present  effective  organization  of 
the  iron-workers,  and  it  was  he  also  who  led  in  the  fight 
for  advanced  wages;  he  has  been  largely  instrumental  in 
nearly  doubling  the  income  of  the  iron-worker  in  five  years. 
In  1897  the  housesmith  received  $2.50  a  day.  In  1903  he 
receives  $4.50  a  day.  Parks  has  made  life  better  worth  liv- 
ing— at  least  in  a  rnaterial  sense — for  25,000  New  Yorkers. 

How  Unionism  Excuses  Parks 

You  will  hear  honest  men  saying:  "Yes,  Parks  is  a  graft- 
er, but  see  what  he  has  done  for  us!  Yes,  he  steals,  but  he 
steals  mostly  from  the  employers.  What  difference  is  it  to 
us  if  he  makes  the  employers  give  up?  They  get  more  than 
their  share  anyhow." 

It  takes  high  moral  stamina  to  resist  such  speciousness 
as  this. 

Gratitude,  however,  never  kept  a  man  in  office,  especial- 
ly in  political  office,  and  we  find  Parks  engaged  in  all  the 
familiar  electioneering  devices  to  maintain  his  power.  A 
meeting  hall  holding  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  member- 
ship was  easily  packed  by  friends  of  the  boss  when  he  need- 
ed a  vote  of  confidence.  We  find  him  securing  his  own 
judges  at  elections,  once  even  rushing  the  polls  so  that  the 
city   police   were   called   in   to    quell   the   riot.     We   hear   of 


232  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

repeaters  and  purchased  votes,  even  of  fraudulent  ballots 
and  fraudulent  counts.  I  was  told  of  one  instance  in  which, 
after  the  adjournment  of  a  meeting,  when  President  Neidig 
and  many  other  members  had  gone  home,  the  Parks  ring 
called  the  union  together  again  at  2:30  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing, suspended  the  constitution,  elected  Parks  fpr  another 
term  as  walking  delegate,  and  voted  him  a  three  months' 
vacation  at  full  pay.  Alarmed  by  this  scandal,  however,  a 
subsequent  meeting  reversed  the  action. 

Pursuing  all  these  approved  bruiser  and  criminal  methods 
of  the  ward  politician,  Parks,  nevertheless,  could  not  have 
held  his  place  without  drawing  around  him  a  ring  of  ad- 
herents (heelers)  who  would  support  him  through  thick  and 
thin. 

The  Other  Side — The  Grafting  Employers 

It  has  its  humorous  aspects — the  astonishment  and  horror 
with  which  we  heard  the  stories  of  graft  given  out  by 
members  of  the  employers'  association — we  Americans  who 
take  credit  for  knowing  ourselves  so  well!  Here  was  a 
builder  doing  his  million  or  two  million  dollars'  worth  of 
business  a  year  indignantly  telling  how  he  paid  $200  or 
$2,000  to  a  walking  delegate  six  months  or  two  years  ago! 
Why  has  he  kept  his  indignation  to  himself  so  long?  and 
why  did  he  pay  the  money,  anyway? 

We  are  asked  to  look  upon  these  things  as  if  bribery  and 
graft  and  blackmail  were  nezv  in  the  building  trades  of  New 
York. 

Why  is  it  that  for  years  the  building  department  has 
been  notably  one  of  the  most  corrupt  branches  of  the  city 
government?  Why  have  several  former  high  officials  of  this 
department,  employed  at  a  modest  salary,  gone  out  of  office 
after  a  few  years  of  service  with  fortunes  large  enough  to 
make  them  resplendent  for  the  remainder  of  their  days? 
Why  are  the  positions  of  building  inspector  even  to-day  in 
such  demand?  The  inspector  is  paid  only  $1,200  a  year, 
out  of  which  he  must  buy  his  uniform,  pay  his  own  expenses 
(and  his  political  assessments)  and  he  must,  if  he  is  an 
efficient  officer,  be  a  man  of  experience  and  ability  as  a 
builder.    Why,  his  earnings  are  not  more  than  an  ordinary 


TRADE  UNIONS  233 

carpenter  or  blacksmith  will  make — not  so  much,  perhaps. 
On  this  exact  point  the  new  superintendent  of  buildings, 
Henry  S.  Thompson,  has  said: 

"With  $100,000,000  worth  of  building  being  done  every 
year  in  this  city,  and  every  dollar  of  it  subject  to  the  super- 
vision of  inspectors  of  this  department,  the  opportunities 
for  graft  and  blackmail  in  the  building  department  are 
equaled  by  no  other  department  in  the  city,  except,  possibly, 
the  police. 

"These  $i,2oo-a-year  men  overlook  $3,000,000  buildings. 
They  are  the  ones  to  pass  on  the  materials  being  used.  If 
inferior  material  is  put  in,  if  the  plans  are  deviated  from,  if 
the  plumbing  is  not  placed  properly,  if  there  is  the  least 
deviation  from  the  prescribed  plan,  or  from  the  law,  the  in- 
spector on  the  ground  is  the  man  to  bring  it  to  notice  and 
require  the  builder  to  comply  with  the  law.  How  wide  a 
field  this  opens  if  the  inspector  is  not  an  honest  man  any 
one  may  see." 

Bribery  in  the  Building  Departvient 

For  long  there  was  a  regular  schedule  of  bribe  money: 
So  much  for  the  construction  inspector,  so  much  for  the 
plumbing  inspector,  so  much  for  the  iron  work  inspector, 
and  so  on.  Ofter  the  bribes  were  contemptible  five-dollar 
bills  for  breaking  little  laws,  and  sometimes  as  high  as 
$2,000  paid  to  high  officials  for  breaking  big  laws.  And  who 
has  made  the  building  department  for  years  a  favorite  place 
for  grafting?  The  builders — no  one  else.  Not  all  builders 
— no  one'  may  accuse  a  whole  class — but  enough  of  them  to 
give  a  great  city  department  its  evil  reputation.  Why  have 
they  paid  graft  and  bribed  building  superintendents  and  in- 
spectors? ' 

Because  they  ivanted  to  break  the  law. 

That,  indeed,  is  the  secret  of  all  graft.  They  wanted  to 
put  in  cheaper  materials  than  the  law  called  for,  they  did 
not  want  to  make  their  building  really  fireproof,  they  did 
want  to  hurry  and  scamp  their  work  and  increase  their 
profits,  or  they  were  too  cowardly  to  resist  the  demand  of 
corrupt  officials;  so  they  used  bribe  money. 

Similarly  there  were  times  when  the  purchase  of  the  labor 


234  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

boss  also  became  "a  regular  business  expense."  And  this  is 
not  new;  it  is  as  old  as  the  unions  themselves. 

In  the  case  of  the  walking  delegate,  the  builder  wants  to 
break,  not  a  law,  but  his  agreement  with  the  union;  he 
wants  to  deal  unfairly,  he  wants  to  "keep  in"  with  the  un- 
ion, but  at  the  same  time  he, wants  to  prostitute  the  union 
to  his  own  private  ends;  or  he  is  too  cowardly  to  resist  in 
court  the  demands  of  the  corrupt  delegate. 

Here,  for  instance,  are  non-union  men  working  on  a  job, 
or  laborers  doing  the  work  of  skilled  artisans;  the  delegate 
protests,  as  his  duty  requires;  how  much  simpler  and  cheap- 
er it  is  to  hand  out  a  hundred-dollar  bill,  quiet  the  delegate, 
and  keep  the  non-union  men  and  laborers  working  at  cheap 
wages.  No  matter  if  it  is  the  purchase  of  a  man's  honor,  np 
matter  if  the  delegate  sells  out  his  friends,  business  has  not 
been  interrupted. 

Do  Employers  Want  Honest  Labor  Leaders? 

And  does  any  one  really  suppose  that  all  builders  really 
want  honest  delegates?  Does  any  one  suppose  that  our 
street  railway  owners,  our  gas  concessioners,  our  owners  of 
dock  privileges,  really  ivant  honest  aldermen,  honest  city 
officials?  No,  sir;  they  do  not.  If  the  delegates  and  of- 
ficials were  honest,  profits  would  be  decreased,  the  builder 
would  not  be  able  to  beat  his  competitor,  and  the  street- 
car capitalist  to  rob  the  public  of  franchises.  After  all,  this 
is  a  republic,  a  government  by  the  people;  if,  as  a  people, 
we  really  did  not  want  bosses  we  should  not  have  them. 
Grafting  is  only  one  expression  of  our  American  lawlessness. 

New  York  was  deeply  stirred  the  other  day  over  the 
revelation  of  the  demands  made  by  the  stone-cutters'  union 
on  their  employers  for  a  large  sum  of  money  which  the 
union  called  a  "fine"  for  disregarding  union  regulations. 
Fifty  thousand  dollars  was  at  first  demanded  from  Andrew 
J.  Baird  and  his  associates  of  the  Stone  Dealers'  Associa- 
tion, but  employers  and  employees  finally  compromised  on 
ten  thousand  dollars.  I  am  not  here  entering  into  the  dis- 
cussion as  to  whether  this  payment  was  "graft"  or  not,  or 
whether  the  union  has  a  right  to  demand  this  large  sum. 
The   significant  fact  was  that  the   public  would   never  have 


TRADE  UNIONS  235 

heard  of  this  transaction — which  surely  meant  something — 
if  the  union  treasurer,  Murphy,  had  not  stolen  the  money, 
with  the  result  that  the  whole  affair  was  dragged  into  the 
courts.  At  no  time  in  the  proceedings  was  there  an  accusa- 
tion of  employer  against  employee,  or  employee  against 
employer.  Here  was  a  curious,  unaccountable  sum  of  money 
passing,  and  the  men  who  paid  it  making  no  public  protest. 
After  Murphy  was  in  State's  Prison  he  made  the  statement 
that  there  was  a  secret  agreement  and  understanding  be- 
tween the  union  and  the  employers'  association,  similar  to 
the  combinations  which  I  have  described  in  my  article  on 
Chicago  labor  conditions. 

The  fact  is,  the  employers  wanted  to  use  the  union  to 
fight  their  competitors  and  to  form  a  monopoly,  and  the 
union  was  willing  to  be  used,  if  paid  for  it. 

No ;  the  dishonest  Labor  Boss,  if  not  too  greedy,  is  very 
often  a  useful  tool  for  the  employers.  A  single  instance,  a 
story  told  by  District  Attorney  Jerome,  from  evidence  in 
his  posssession,  will  show  how  happily  the  Boss  serves  the 
employer  when  he  does  not  want  to  meet  the  demands  of 
the  union  squarely,  fairly,  honestly;  it  also  throws  an  im- 
pressive light  on  some  other  ugly  conditions  of  our  modern 
building  system. 

A  Story  of  Graft 

For  years  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Painters  and 
Decorators  worked  in  amity  under  agreements  with  the 
employers'  association  of  their  trade.  To  the  Amalgamated 
Association  belonged  practically  all  the  painters  and  decora- 
tors in  New  York  City  and  vicinity.  In  the  summer  of 
1902  the  Amalgamated  Association  demanded  an  increase 
in  wages  and  a  half  holiday  on  Saturday — as  they  had  a 
perfect  right  to  do.  I  am  not  here  questioning  the  justice 
of  these  demands  or  the  provocation  of  the  employers;  the 
plain  point  is,  that  instead  of  meeting  this  demand  of  their 
old  partners  in  the  industry  fairly  and  squarely  with  argu- 
ment or  refusal,  or  offer  of  arbitration,  the  employers  be- 
thought themselves  of  an  evasive  scheme — a  business 
scheme — to  fight  the  demands.  In  other  parts  of  the  coun- 
try, having  headquarters  in  Indiana,  there  existed  a  national 


236  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

organization  of  painters  called  the  Brotherhood  of  Painters 
and  Decorators.  The  employers  opened  secret  negotiations 
with  this  organization  to  come  to  New  York,  organize,  and 
fight  the  Amalgamated  Association.  When  the  members  of 
the  Amalgamated  Association  heard  of  this  plan  they  pre- 
pared at  once,  and  not  unnaturally,  to  wage  a  bitter  fight, 
finally  striking  against  all  the  members  of  the  Association 
of  Interior  Decorators  and  Cabinet  Makers,  tying  up,  among 
other  buildings,  the  new  Union  Club.  The  employers  knew 
that  they  could  not  fight  the  Amalgamated  Association, 
backed  up  as  it  w^as  by  the  Board  of  Building  Trades,  un- 
less the  new  Brotherhood  could  also  get  a  representation 
in  the  board.  The  natural  way  to  get  this  representation — 
at  least  no  one  seemed  to  think  of  any  other  way — was  to 
use  graft,  and  plenty  of  it. 

President  Bahlhorn  of  the  Brotherhood  came  on  from 
Indiana  and  offered  $2,500  in  cash  to  be  used'  in  the  proper 
manner.  It  wasn't  nearly  enough.  The  opulent  New  York 
labor  bosses  sniffed  at  this  western  money,  and  President 
Bahlhorn  himself  began,  as  a  labor  leader  expressed  it,  "to 
have  cold  feet."  He  expected  to  appear  soon  for  reelection 
by  his  organization  and  ugly  questions  might  be  asked  by 
honest  members  as  to  where  and  how  that  $2,500  was  ex- 
pended in  New  York — and  he  couldn't  well  explain.  So 
fifteen  members  out  of  seventeen  of  the  employers'  associa- 
tion— two  refused  to  pay — subscribed  $450  each,  the  Union 
Club,  which  was  anxious  to  have  the  work  on  its  building 
go  forward,  made  a  handsome  contribution,  and  this,  with 
other  funds  subscribed  elsewhere,  a  total  of  some  $17,000, 
was  used  among  the  Labor  Bosses,  chiefly  in  the  credentials 
committee  as  an  "initiation  fee." 

Unions  "Grafting"  on  Each  Other 

After  this  money  had  passed  influences  favorable  to  the 
Brotherhood  began  curiously  to  ferment  in  the  board.  An 
umpire — Boss  Richard  Carvill — was  appointed  to  decide  cer- 
tain questions  between  the  two  painters'  organizations.  Af- 
ter many  significant  delays  and  charges  of  "graft,"  Boss 
Carvill  decided  in  favor  of  the  Brotherhood.  As  a  condi- 
tion of  its  admission   to  the  board,  on   December  20,   1902, 


TRADE  UNIONS  237 

the  Brotherhood  agreed  not  to  work  for  less  wages  than  the 
Amalgamated  Association  was  demanding,  $4  and  $4.50  a 
day.  Three  days  later  the  Brotherhood  deliberately  signed 
a  secret  agreement  for  one  year  with  the  employers'  asso- 
ciation to  work  for  $3.25  and  $3.50  a  day.  The  $450  paid  by 
each  employer  was  thus  a  first-class  investment;  it  was  soon 
returned  to  him,  with  much  more,  in  the  saving  of  wages. 
"1  kn'ew  that  the  end  was  coming,"  said  a  prominent  labor 
leader,  "when  the  unions  began  to  graft  on  each  other." 

Every  step  in  this  transaction  was  marked  by  graft,  by 
bad  faith,  by  indirect  dealing;  and  one  side  was  exactly  as 
bad  as  the  other.  Yet  the  employers  call  upon  the  public 
for  sympathy  in  their  fight  against  union  corruption.  A  lit- 
tle common  honesty  and  determination,  a  good  deal  less 
greediness  on  both  sides  to  meet  business  issues  squarely, 
and  such  a  sickening  transaction  as  this,  would  never  have 
occurred. 

"Only  a  higher  conception  of  business  honor  among  the 
building  contractors  themselves,"  says  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  "will  lead  to  an  absolute  and  enduring  reform." 

The  Cause  of  Graft  Higher  Up 

Bossism  and  venality,  then,  existed  in  New  York  long 
before  the  great  lockout  of  May,  1903.  The  builder  had 
long  paid  money  to  break  the  law  or  his  agreements,  and 
the  delegate  had  long  taken  money  to  sell  out  his  union, 
and  neither  had  fared  so  poorly.  It  was  a  sort  of  balanced 
venality  which  might  have  continued  to  this  day  if  another 
element — an  outside,  unrelated  influence — had  not  entered 
the  field  and  disturbed  the  evil  equilibrium  of  the  industry. 
It  is  of  little  importance  what  the  immediate  causes  of  the 
hostilities  really,  were,  of  no  more  importance  than  the 
shots  fired  on  Fort  Sumter  in  1861.  This,  too,  was  an  ir- 
repressible conflict;  if  it  had  not  come  in  May  it  would  have 
come  in  June,  or  July,  or  later.  The  same  issues  have  al- 
ready been  fought  out  in  Chicago  and  San  Francisco,  are 
now  being  contested  in  Pittsburg,  and  will  have  to  be  met 
in  Boston.  They  are  fundamental  and  national,  not  special 
and  local  issues. 

The   cause   given   by   the   employers'   association   for   the 


238  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

lockout  was  that  the  exactions  of  the  Parkses  and  Carvills 
and  of  the  Board  of  Building  Trades  had  become  absolutely 
unbearaBle,  and  the  only  way  out  was  to  smash  the  Boss 
system.  No  one  who  knows  anything  of  the  senseless 
strikes,  trade  disputes,  and  blackmail  which  the  builders  un- 
questionably had  to  suffer,  will  minimize  this  provocation  or 
excuse  the  Labor  Boss. 

But  there  is  much  more  to  say  in  regard  to  the  po'sition 
of  the  employers'  association,  an  organization  hardly  older 
than  the  lockout  itself — some  things  that  may  have  escaped 
the  attention  of  the  casual  reader  of  the  newspapers,  to 
whom  the  fight  may  seem  a  plain  issue  between  the  high- 
minded  and  abused  employer  and  the  blackmailing  Labor 
Boss.  If  the  real  truth  were  known  it  might  be  found  that 
these  extortions  of  the  Labor  Boss,  never  very  large  com- 
pared with  the  millions  and  milions  of  dollars  involved,  and 
not  half  so  hateful,  be  it  whispered,  as  we  have  been  led 
to  believe,  that  these  petty  strikes  and  trade  disputes,  while 
maddening  enough,  were  not  to  be  compared  in  seriousness 
with  one  other  tremendous  fact  of  the  building  industry  of 
New  York  and  other  cities.  The  gnat  stings  of  the  Labor 
Bosses  won  public  sympathy  for  the  employers'  association; 
the  other  thing,  if  generally  admitted,  would  have  merited 
none  at  all. 

Enter  the  Trust 

The  plain  fact  is,  a  gigantic  hand  had  reached  into  New 
York  and  was  revolutionizing  the  building  industry  of  the 
city — the  hand  of  the  Trust. 

During  the  whole  time  of  the  lockout  the  man  on  the 
street  may  have  noticed  that  work  on  many  new  buildings, 
some  of  the  most  important  in  New  York,  went  forward 
without  interruption,  quietly,  persistently.  I'"arther  inquiry 
would  have  shown  that  all,  or  nearly  all,  of  these  buildings 
were  under  contract  by  a  single  concern — the  George  A. 
Fuller  Construction  Company.  Now,  why  was  this  company 
working  when  all  the  other  builders  of  New  York  were  idle? 
How  did  it  rise  superior  to  strikes  and  lockouts?  Had  it 
solved  at  last  the  labor  problem? 


TRADE  UNIONS  239 

The  George  A.  Fuller  Construction  Comany,  the  first  of 
several  great  concerns  of  a  similar  character,  all  of  Chicago 
origin,  based  on  Chicago  ideas  and  experience  and  backed 
by  Chicago  push,  came  to  New  York  several  years  ago,  its 
advent,  curiously  enough,  being  contemporaneous  with  that 
of  Boss  Parks.  Starting  with  no  business  at  all,  it  has, 
within  some  five  or  six  years'  time,  become  the  greatest 
construction  company  in  the  world,  with  the  largest  single 
building  business  in  New  York  and  important  branches  in 
Chicago,  Baltimore,  and  Philadelphia. 

The  Fuller  Company,  itself  capitalized  at  $20,000,000  is 
to-day  owned  and  operated  by  a. gigantic  corporation  known 
as  the  United  States  Realty  and  Construction  Company, 
with  a  capitalization  of  $66,000,000.  It  is  the  trust  idea  ap- 
plied to  the  building  industry. 

It  was  as  inevitable  sooner  or  later  that  such  combina- 
tions should  appear  in  the  building  trades,  as  in  the  steel  or 
oil  industries;  they  were  the  logical  result  of  the  era  of  the 
sky-scraper.  And  it  was  also  inevitable  that  their  advent 
should  work  mighty  changes,  that  the  old-line  builders  and 
contractors — their  competitors — should  suffer  before  the  cen- 
tralized management  and  unified  purpose  of  the  new  cor- 
porations. 

Indeed,  the  independent  contractors  faced  a  similar  dan- 
ger on  both  sides.  On  one  they  had  the  leviathan  combina- 
tions of  capital,  which  were  taking  their  business  and  cut- 
ing  into  their  profits;  in  six  years'  time  they  saw  half  the 
important  building  business  of  New  York  pass  into  the 
hands  of  these  new  corporations;  on  the  other  side  they  had 
the  hardly  less  formidable  preying  combination  of  labor 
levying  blackmail  and  forcing  up  wages.  What  could  they 
do  but  organize?  They  were  literally  whipped  into  organi- 
zation; that  it  must  have  required  tremendous  pressure  to 
drive  these  contractors  together,  no  one  can  doubt  who 
knows  the  fierce  competition  and  rivalry  which  exists  among 
them.  In  short,  it  was  a  part  of  the  common  struggle  of 
the  times;  organization  and  combination  against  disorganiza- 
tion, a  clashing  of  great  elemental  forces,  not  the  gnat 
stings   of  a  little   insignificant,   bullying   Boss   Parks. 


240  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

How  the  Trust  Worked 

There  was  a  vital  idea  and  high-class  brains  behind  the 
L^nited  States  Realty  and  Construction  Company.  The 
managers  devised  new  methods  of  economy — doing  away  in 
many  instances  with  middlemen,  tending  to  eleminate  inde- 
pendent architects  and  contractors;  they  had  new  schemes 
for  dealing  with  labor,  learned  in  the  Chicago  strike  of  1900, 
and  they  cunningly  contrived  new  avenues  of  getting  politi- 
cal influence — for  the  building  business  hangs  on  the  will  of 
a  political  appointee,  the  City  Superintendent  of  Buildings. 
And,  instead  of  waiting  for  business,  they  went  out  and 
made  business;  they  organized  neglected  opportunities. 
Here  was  a  man  who  had  land,  but  no  money  to  build;  they 
supplied  the  money  and  built  for  him;  often  they  bought 
the  land  themselves  and  built. 

The  new  corporation  was,  moreover,  fortified  in  its  posi- 
tion in  a  hundred  ways.  In  the  first  place  it  was  intimately 
related  to  most  of  the  other  great  trust  and  financial  in- 
terests, which,  after  all,  are  nothing  more  than  a  family 
party,  with  headquarters  in  Wall  Street.  Naturally,  there- 
fore, when  any  of  these  interests  were  concerned  in  impor- 
tant new  buildings,  they  favored  the  Fuller  Company,  for 
thus,  in  some  degree,  they  paid  the  profit  of  one  pocket 
into  the  earnings  of  another. 

Forces  Behind  the  Fuller  Company 

Here  we  find  the  Standard  Oil  Company  represented  in 
the  person  of  James  Stillman,  president  of  Rockefeller's 
bank,  the  greatest  money  institution  in  America.  Mr.  Still- 
man  is  chairman  of  the  executive  committee.  It  was  well 
for  a  large  consumer  of  steel  like  the  Fuller  Company  to 
have  a  steel  connection,  and  we  find,  accordingly,  that  the 
LTnited  States  Steel  Corporation  is  represented  in  the  direc- 
tory by  Charles  M.  Schwab  and  E,  C.  Converse;  and  that 
the  Fuller  Company  owns  $550,000  of  stock  in  the  Steel 
Trust.  At  one  time  the  Fuller  Company  is  said  to  have  had 
a  contract  whereby  it  got  its  steel  at  especially  favorable 
rates.  Railroad  interests  (the  railroads  haul  the  steel  and 
other  materials)    were  represented   by  Cornelius  Vanderbilt 


TRADE  UNIONS  241 

and  John  W.  Gates.  Banking  and  other  huge  financial  in- 
terests found  a  voice  in  James  H.  Hyde,  vice-president  of 
the  Equitable  Life  Insurance  Company;  in  James  Speyer, 
one  of  the  most  conservative  bankers  in  New  York;  in  Au- 
gustus D.  Juilliard  and  G.  G.  Haven,  of  the  Mutual  Life  In- 
surance Company — all  large  owners  or  agents  of  real  estate 
and  buildings,  who  might  need  the  services  of  a  building 
company.  Thus,  we  find  the  new  Equitable  Life  building  in 
Broadway  going  naturally  to  the  Fuller  Company.  But 
perhaps  the  most  important  of  all  its  connections  was  with 
the  real  estate  interests  of  New  York — the  men  who  are  on 
the  inside,  who  know  when  and  where  buildings  are  to  be 
built,  and  who  is  to  build  them — and  who  know  these 
things  first;  so  we  find  Bradish  Johnson,  an  acknowledged 
real  estate  expert,  as  president  of  the  company,  and  Albert 
Flake,  Robert  E.  Dowling,  Henry  Morganthau,  all  very 
prominent  real  estate  men,  represented  in  the  directory. 
Stockbroking  interests — an  important  department  in  such  a 
concern — were  represented  by  Henry  Budge.  Nor  did  the 
company  omit  to  cast  a  political  line  to  windward.  The  city 
regulates  building,  and  it  is  well  to  have  influence  where  it 
will  count.  So  we  find  among  the  directors  Mr.  Dowling,  Mr. 
Flake,  and  Hugh  J.  Grant,  former  mayor  of  New  York,  a 
big  politician,  and  an  associate  in  a  trust  company  composed 
largely  of  Tammany  interests.  It  is  common  talk  in  the 
building  trades  that  the  new  Superintendent  of  Buildings, 
Mr,  Thompson,  was  appointed  through  the  influence  of 
these  directors,  though  there  are  no  charges  of  maladmin- 
istration against  him.  Legal  acumen,  of  which  such  a  com- 
pany have  urgent  need,  is  represented  by  one  of  the  ablest 
New  York  lawyers,  B.  Aymar  Sands.  Also  we  have  repre- 
sentatives from  Chicago  and  Boston,  where  the  company 
does  a  large  business.  The  actual  management  of  the  build- 
ing interests  was  in  the  hands  of  Judge  S.  P.  McConnell, 
president  of  the  Fuller  Company,  and  Harry  S.  Black,  a 
relative  of  the  founder,  George  A.  Fuller,  both  Chicago  men. 

Buying  a  Supply  of  Labor  Bosses 

When  the  Fuller  Company  first  came  to  New  York  and 
introduced  the  "department  store  idea"  in  building,  the  old- 


242  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

line  contractors  naturally  did  their  best  to  fight  it.  So  the 
old-line  storekeeper  has  waged  a  losing  war  against  the  de- 
partment store.  In  several  trades  there  existed  combina- 
tions between  the  associated  employers  and  the  unions  (like 
those  in  Chicago)  which  fought  the  new  companies  with 
effect;  in  other  trades,  not  so  well  organized,  there  came  to 
be  a  wholesale  bidding  for  labor.  The  old-line  contractors 
would  raise  wages  and  get  the  man  away  from  the  Con- 
struction Company,  and  the  Construction  Company  would 
bid  up  and  get  the  men  back  again.  Here  were  sown  still 
other  seeds  of  corruption,  for  both  sides  sought  the  favor 
of  the  walking  delegates.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
arrogance  of  the  Labor  Boss,  knowing  his  power,  is  largely 
traceable  to  this  courting  of  the  labor  monopoly  by  both 
parties  to  the  gigantic  struggle  between  trust  and  indepen- 
dent builder. 

The  Fuller  Company,  fresh  from  bitter  strike  experiences 
in  Chicago,  had  learned  the  simple  business  lesson  that  the 
labor  union  has  come  to  stay  quite  as  surely  as  the  trust,  that 
it  is  better  to  work  with  it  than  to  fight  it.  Instead  of  antag- 
onizing labor  it  went  out  of  its  way  to  win  labor — or  at 
least  the  Labor  Bosses.  It  yielded  to  the  demands  of  labor 
and,  doing  not  a  little  of  its  work  on  a  percentage  basis,  it 
simply  charged  the  added  expenses  up  to  the  owner — in  other 
words,  "took  it  out  of.  the  public,"  as  the  pools  in  certain 
Chicago  building  trades  are  doing.  Also,  it  made  a  policy 
of  quick  work,  which  is  always  worth  a  premium  to  the 
owner.  But  it  went  a  step  farther,  perhaps  the  next  uni- 
versal step;  the  Chicago  "pools"  were  mere  voluntary  agree- 
ments of  competing  contractors  with  the  unions — "gentle- 
men's agreements"  in  which,  in  spite  of  oaths,  and  promises, 
and  bonds,  the  gentlemen  would  not  remain  gentlemen. 
The  Fuller  Company  was  a  corporation,  a  unit  in  which 
there  could  be  no  internal  dissension,  which  could  deal  with 
the  union  as  a  single  man. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  Fuller  Company  brought 
Sam  Parks  from  Chicago  when  it  came — and,  curiously 
enough,  as  a  "scab,"  to  help  assist  the  trust's  entry  into 
New  York — and  there  is  evidence  that  he  was  on  their  pay- 
roll long  after  he  became  a  leader  of  the  union:  that  while 


TRADE  UNIONS  243 

he  was  drawing  wages  from  his  union  to  look  after  its  in- 
terests he  was  also  drawing  money  from  the  Fuller  Com- 
pany to  look  out  for  its  interests.  Rather  strange,  perhaps, 
but  modern!  The  check  paid  by  the  Hecla  Iron  Works  to 
Parks — I  have  told  why  this  check  was  paid — was  cashed 
by  the  Fuller  Company.  One  of  the  officers  of  the  Fuller 
Company  was  the  go-between  in  the  payment  of  money  for 
the  admission  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Painters  to  the  Board 
of  Delegates. 

Trust  at  IV ar 

The  Fuller  Company,  as  a  labor  leader  expressed  it  to 
me,  "went  the  old  builders  one  better  on  their  own  game." 
Instead  of  buying  delegates  occasionally,  they  were  able  to 
own  a  supply  outright.  It  is  commorT  talk  in  the  building 
trades  that  the  Fuller  Company,  through  its  influence  with 
the  labor  bosses,  could  and  did  cause  strikes  against  their 
competitors,  and  even  invited  strikes  against  themselves 
when  they  wished  to  secure  immunity  from  penalties  under 
the  "strike  clause"  in  their  contracts,  but  I  could  not  find 
any  specific  evidence,  even  from  the  company's  worst  ene- 
mies, of  this  dastardly  sort  of  warfare.  But  this  idea  of 
being  friends  with  labor,  good  or  bad,  has  kept  the  Fuller 
buildings  going  through  all  the  strikes,  has  made  good  their 
claim  to  getting  their  buildings  done  on  time — at  any  cost  of 
money  or  honor.  Other  construction  companies,  like  the 
Thompson-Starrett  Company,  more  conservatively  man- 
aged, buried  their  differences  with  the  old-line  contractors 
temporarily,  and  joined  the  employers'  association  in  their 
fight  to  down  the  blackmailing  Labor  Boss. 

Who  is  Responsible? 

Mr.  Jerome  has  said:  "This  corruption  in  the  labor  un- 
ions is  simply  a  reflection  of  what  we  find  in  public  life. 
Every  one  who  has  studied  our  public  life  is  appalled  by  the 
corruption  that  confronts  him  on  every  side.  It  goes 
through  every  department  of  the  national,  State,  and  local 
government. 


244  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Outlook.  84:  615-21.  November  10,  1906. 
Walking  Delegate.     Luke  Grant. 

An  automobile  stopped  before  a  great  business  block 
which  was  building.  It  was  on  the  Wide.  Side  in  Chicago. 
Three  men  and  the  chauffeur  were  seated  in  the  vehicle. 

'"I'll  be  gone  but  a  minute,"  one  said,  as  he  stepped  to 
the  curb.     "You  fellows  wait  for  me." 

He  was  flashily  dressed.  His  trousers  were  fresh  from 
the  ironing-board  of  the  tailor,  and  his  coat  was  the  latest 
cut.  He  "sported"  a  fancy  lavender-colored  waistcoat,  and 
in  his  shirt-front  a  diamond  sparkled.  Patent-leather  shoes 
adorned  his  feet.  His  whole  appearance  indicated  that  he 
had  no  lack  of  money  and  spent  much  of  it  upon  himself. 

Entering  the  buildfng,  he  glanced  around  until  his  eyes 
found  what  they  sought.  He  beckoned  to  a  young  man  in 
greasy  overalls,  extending  his  hand  as  the  other  approached. 

"This  job's  on  strike,"  he  announced.  "You  tell  the 
other  fellows  to  quit  until  the  trouble  is  straightened  out." 

The  workmen  without  demur  obeyed  the  order,  and  with- 
in five  minutes  the  building  was  "tied  up." 

"Did  ye  pull  the  job?"  inquired  one  of  his  companions 
as  the  walking  delegate  climbed  into  his  automobile. 

"What  d'ye  suppose  I  came'  out  here  for?"  was  the  reply. 
"We'll  let  them  sweat  for  a  while,"  and  the  chauffeur  was 
ordered  to  return  to  the  city. 

The  buildings  in  question  are  situated  about  five  miles 
from  the  business  center  of  Chicago.  On  the  way  out  a 
number  of  bottles  of  champagne  had  been  emptied  by  the 
walking  delegate  and  his  friends.  More  wine  was  consumed 
on  the  return  trip.  The  walking  delegate  "did  the  honors," 
explaining:  "We  might  as  well  do  things  right.  I  may  have 
my  faults,  but  I  never  was  accused  of  being  cheap." 

This  particular  walking  delegate  is  not  representative  of 
men  of  his  calling.  He  illustrates,  however,  an  exception 
frequently  accepted  as  a  type. 

The  walking  delegate  is  the  product  of  conditions  for 
which  employers  who  are  to-day  loudest  in  their  condemnar 
tion  of  him  are  largely  responsible.  When  in  the  early 
days  labor  unions  were  struggling  for  "recognition"  or  for 


TRADE  UNIONS  245 

the  right  of  collective  bargaining,  in  the'  days  before  the 
evolution  of  the  walking  delegate,  the  more  aggressive 
spirits  who  volunteered  to  represent  their  fellows  usually 
paid  the  penalty  for  their  temerity.  When  a  committee  ap- 
proached an  employer  with  a  request  for  increased  wages 
or  improved  working  conditions,  the  spokesman,  if  not  the 
entire  committee,  had  to  seek  other  employment. 

"We  propose  to  conduct  our  business  in  our  own  way," 
said  the  employer.     "We  want  no  union  interference." 

The  earlier  unions  tried  to  counteract  the  penalizing  by 
paying  full  wages  to  the  men  thus  "victimized"  until  the 
latter  found  other  employment.  This  condition  became  re- 
sponsible for  the  walking  delegate,  since  the  unions  learned 
by  experience  that  to  protect  their  interests  they  needed  a 
representative  who  could  not  be  discharged.  This  attitude 
of  employers  toward  unions  not  only  made  the  walking  dele- 
gate a  necessity,  but  in  a  degree  determined  his  qualifica- 
tions. He  had  to  be  a  man  possessed  of  physical  courage, 
who  would  not  be  intimidated. 

The  walking  delegate  is  elected  by  popular  vote.  It  does 
not  follow,  however,  that  the  man  best  suited  for  the  posi- 
tion is  always  the  one  chosen.  The  'popular  vote  system  has 
its  defects  in  the  labor  world,  as  in  the  world  of  politics. 
The  influence  of  the  "good  fellow"  is  powerful  among  un- 
ion men.  In  many  unions  the  man  who  freely  spends  his 
money  over  the  bar  can  get  elected  to  any  position  he  as- 
pires to.  As  the  citizen  who  most  strongly  condemns  cor- 
ruption in  civic  affairs  is  often  the  one  who  stays  away 
from  the  polls  on  election  day,  so  the  union  man  most  ready 
to  criticise  the  acts  of  the  walking  delegate  usually  takes 
no  part  in  his  election.  Whether  a  walking  delegate  is 
elected  by  ballot  in  a  meeting  of  his  union,  or  by  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot  system,  rarely  does  the  vote  cast  exceed  thirty 
per  cent,  of  the  membership. 

In  unions  of  skilled  workmen  it  is  an  almost  invariable 
rule  that  the  walking  delegate  is  a  competent  workman  in  his 
trade.  "He  is  a  good  mechanic  and  understands  his  busi- 
ness" is  an  expression  frequently  heard  among  skilled 
workmen  when  discussing  the  qualifications  of  a  candidate. 
"He  can't  hold  a  job  anywhere"  is  an  eflfective  argument  to 


246  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

use  against  an  aspirant  for  office.  It  is  not  unusual,  how- 
ever, for  the  good  workman  to  be  also  the  "good  fellow." 
If  he  is  not  a  "good  fellow"  when  first  elected,  he  is  ex- 
ceedingly apt  to  become  one  if  he  wishes  to  retain  his  popu- 
larity. 

The  powers  vested  in  the  walking  delegate  by  his  union 
vary  according  to  custom  and  to  the  peculiar  conditions  ex- 
isting in  the  craft  he  represents.  In  some  unions  his  au- 
thority is  almost  supreme,  in  others  he  is  given  instructions 
to  carry  out.  Much  depends  on  what  is  believed  most  ex- 
pedient to  bring  results,  and  not  a  little  depends  on  the 
character  of  the  individual  walking  delegate.  There  are  no 
unions  which  permit  their  walking  delegate  to  initiate  a  gen- 
eral strike  of  the  trade  in  a  city.  That  must  be  voted  on  by 
the  membership.  At  the  same  time,  the  walking  delegate 
in  most  unions  has  authority  to  call  a  strike  on  a  particular 
building  or  factory  without  consulting  the  membership.  At 
times  this  leads  to  serious  abuses;  at  other  times  it  is  an 
advantage  to  the  membership.  If  the  walking  delegate  of  a 
building  trades  union  had  to  wait  for  a  meeting  of  his 
union  to  get  authority  to  order  a  strike,  the  opportune  mo- 
ment might  pass  in  the  interval.  His  idea  is  to  call  a 
strike  at  the  moment  it  will  work  the  greatest  hardship  on 
the  man  he  is  fighting.  Every  strategic  position  must  be 
taken  advantage  of  to  insure  success.  Realizing  this,  the 
members  of  a  union  allow  the  walking  delegate  to  call 
"individual"  strikes  at  his  discretion. 

As  the  powers  of  the  walking  delegate  vary  in  the  dif- 
ferent unions,  so  do  his  duties.  In  a  union  of  street-car 
men,  for  instance,  it  is  unnecessary  to  have  a  walking  dele- 
gate constantly  going  around  among  the  men.  All  the  mem- 
bers of  the  union  are  employed  by  the  same  corporation. 
Once  a  working  agreement  is  signed,  the  working  condi- 
tions are  definitely  settled.  The  wjilking  delegate  is  seldom 
required  to  adjust  grievances.  He  acts  as  secretary  of  his 
union  in  addition  to  his  other  duties. 

In  a  building  trades  union  the  duties  of  the  walking  dele- 
gate are  altogether  diflferent.  Contractors  will  sign  an 
agreement  to  pay  a  certain  scale  of  wages,  but  it  lies  with 
the  walking  delegate  to  see  that  the  agreement  is  enforced. 


TRADE  UNIONS  247 

He  is  required  to  watch  the  members  of  his  union  as  well 
as  the  contractors  who  employ  them.  The  members  of  a 
union  will  vote  unanimously  to  uphold  a  scale,  but  in  the 
fierce  competition  for  work  union  pledges  are  often  forgot- 
ten. The  "law"  of  supply  and  demand  may  be  recognized 
by  economists,  but  it  is  not  recognized  as  a  law  by  the  walk- 
ing delegate  and  his  constituents.  His  daily  work  is  fight- 
ing the  so-called  law>  He  believes  in  free  competition  with 
limitations.  Members  of  the  union  are  free  to  compete 
with  one  another  for  work,  provided  they  insist  on  receiving 
the  minimum  scale  of  wages.  Contractors  may  compete  for 
contracts  as  fiercely  as  they  choose,  but  they  must  pay  the 
minimum  rate  of  wages  to  their  workmen.  The  fair  em- 
ployer must  not  be  made  to  suffer  because  of  the  unscrupu- 
lous one  who  will  cut  wages.  The  honest  union  man  who 
stands  out  for  the  scale  must  not  suffer  because  of  the  less 
honest  member  who  is  willing  to  work  for  less.  The  walk- 
ing delegate  must  see  that  competition  is  not  "free,"  but 
fair. 

Employers  and  workmen  frequently  connive  to  deceive 
the  walking  delegate.  The  paying  of  rebates  is  not  confined 
to  the  railways.  It  exists  in  many  building  trades.  When 
the  walking  delegate  suspects  that  the  scale  is  not  being 
paid,  he  will  surprise  a  contractor  by  appearing  on  a  build- 
ing or  at  the  office  on  pay-day.  The  pay  envelopes  have  to  be 
opened  in  his  presence,  and  if  the  amounts  are  incorrect  a 
strike  is  called.  Knowing  this,  contractors  frequently  place  the 
correct  amount  in  the  pay  envelope  and  receive  a  portion  of 
it  back  the  following  day. 

A  more  ingenious  method  resorted  to  is  to  mark  on  the 
■envelope  a  lesser  number  of  hours  than  the  man  receiving  it 
has  actually  worked.  For  instance,  the  union  scale  is  fifty 
cents  an  hour  and  the  mechanic  has  worked  forty  hours  in 
a  week.  His  pay  would  be  twenty  dollars.  If  he  is  secret- 
ly working  for  forty  cents  an  hour,  his  pay  would  be  sixteen 
dollars,  and  his  envelope  is  marked  thirty-two  hours  at  fifty 
cents  an  hour. 

Such  practices  are  daily  discovered  by  the  walking  dele- 
gate, and  when  he  orders  a  strike  to  break  up  such  a  com- 
bination he  is  denounced  not  only  by  the  employer  but  by 


248  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

the  guilty  men  in  his  own  union.  "My  men  were  perfectly 
satisfied  until  the  walking  delegate  appeared,"  the  contractor 
will  say.  "Other  contractors  are  doing  the  same  thing.  I 
guess  the  trouble  is  I  didn't  hand  him  a  little  money." 

In  most  unions  the  walking  delegate  is  compelled  to  be 
an  employment  agent.  If  he  can  find  work  for  but  one  man 
when  ten  are  idle,  he  makes  enemies  of  the  other  nine,  who 
want  to  know  at  the  next  meeting  "what  they  are  paying  a 
walking  delegate  for." 

"The  walking  delegate  is  the  policeman  of  the  union," 
said  an  old  trade-unionist  to  me  recently.  "The  honest  em- 
ployer does  not  fear  him,  but  the  unscrupulous  dread  him  as 
a  thief  does  a  policeman." 

The  remark  was  made  by  one  of  the  most  intelligent 
members  in  a  union  of  skilled  workers.  While  his  character- 
ization is  perhaps  too  broad,  it  illustrates  the  regard  in  which 
the  walking  delegate  is  held  by  his  fellows.  Incidentally  it 
may  be  mentioned  that  the  man  quoted  was  one  of  a  minor- 
ity bitterly  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  the  walking  dele- 
gate in  his  own  union  several  years  ago.  At  the  time  he  de- 
nounced walking  delegates  on  the  floor  of  his  union  hall  as 
"loafers,"  and  declared  he  would  never  contribute  to  the 
support  of  one. 

Taken  from  the  shop  or  factory,  as  he  generally  is,  there 
is  a  complete  change  in  the  life  of  the  walking  delegate 
when  he  assumes  office.  Under  the  eyes  of  a  taskmaster  in 
a  shop  or  a  factory  he  may  have  been  sober  and  industrious. 
The  unaccustomed  freedom  from  restraint  may,  however, 
change  his  whole  nature.  He  finds  himself  suddenly  trans- 
ferred from  a  position  of  servitude  to  one  of  authority.  He 
has  a  small  army  of  men  at  his  command.  With  an  exag- 
gerated opinion  of  his  own  importance,  he  is  apt  to  abuse 
his  power  before  he  realizes  his  responsibility. 

"Do  you  know  who  I  am?"  said  a  walking  delegate  to  an 
employer  who  questioned  his  right  to  interfere  with  work- 
men. As  he  spoke  he  threw  open  his  coat  and  displayed  a 
star.  He  called  a  strike  at  once,  "just  to  show  the  employ- 
er."    It  was  his  first  day's  experience. 

"My  men  were  stopped  without  apparent  cause,"  said  the 
employer,  an  hour  later,  at  the  headquarters  of  the  union. 


TRADE  UNIONS  249 

"I'll  have  the  matter  looked  into  at  once,"  said  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  District  Council,  who  was  responsible  for  the 
conduct  of  all  the  walking  delegates  from  the  various  local 
unions  in  the  craft.  Calling  in  one  of  his  trusted  men,  the 
President  requested  him  to  go  and  make  an  investigation. 
The  men  were  at  once  ordered  back  to  work. 

■  As  the  inexperienced  walking  delegate  sometimes  calls 
strikes  to  show  his  authority,  so  the  inexperienced  employer 
frequently  provokes  trouble  by  his  manner. 

''If  you  set  your  foot  inside  that  store  I  will  kill  you," 
said  a  merchant  to  a  building  trades  walking  delegate  on  one 
occasion.  The  merchant  had  rented  a  store,  and  it  was  be- 
ing fitted  up  by  non-union  men.  The  walking  delegate  was 
a  man  of  experience,  and  a  fair  judge  of  human  nature. 

"I  don't  want  to  get  killed,  so  I  won't  trespass,"  he  said. 

"You  had  better  not,"  said  the  merchant,  who  was  having 
his  first  experience  with  a  walking  delegate.  "When  I  was 
a  young  man,"  he  continued,  "if  I  could  not  get  three  dollars 
a  week  I  worked  for  two  dollars." 

''Times  have  changed  since  then,"  replied  the  walking 
delegate. 

"I  should  think  they  have  changed,  when  loafers  like 
you  are  permitted  to  interfere  with  workmen.  You  will  not 
work  yourself,  or  allow  others  to  work."  As  a  result  of  this 
merchant's  pugnacity,  the  non-union  men  were  put  of?  the 
building  by  the  architect. 

The  abuse  of  suddenly  acquired  power  is  not  the  only 
danger  which  confronts  the  walking  delegate  when  he  first 
assumes  office.  Temptations  are  daily  thrown  in  his  way 
from  different  directions.  His  duties  necessitate  his  keep- 
ing late  hours.  Employers  who,  for  reasons  best  known  to 
themselves,  desire  to  be  on  friendly  terms  with  the  walking 
delegate  will  ask  him  to  meet  them  in  the  bar-room  of  a 
hotel.  Beer,  something  of  a  luxury  to  him  in  the  days  when 
he  worked  in  a  factory  or  sat  on  the  seat  of  a  wagon,  is  no 
longer  considered  good  to  drink.  The  employer  will  insist  on 
buying  wine.  It  requires  a  strong  character  to  resist  such 
temptations,  and  the  walking  delegate  does  not  always  re- 
sist them,  for  he  is  human.  There  is  not  a  city  of  impor- 
tance in  the  country  that  does  not  contain  its  quota  of  men 


250  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

whose  lives  have  been  wrecked  by  their  careers  as  walking 
delegates.  In  such  a  complete  change  of  atmosphere  it  is 
perhaps  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  some  walking  delegates 
acquire  habits  that  are  not  commendable. 

By  a  wrong  psychological  deduction,  many  people  believe 
that  because  a  walking  delegate  visits  questionable  resorts, 
as  many  of  them  do,  and  is  untrue  to  his  family,  he  must 
necessarily  be  dishonest  and  faithless  to  those  he  repre- 
sents. There  are  many  walking  delegates  who  cannot  be 
purchased  to  do  a  dishonorable  act  where  their  union  is  in- 
volved, but  who  have  extremely  loose  ideas  on  morality  in 
other  respects. 

There  is  as  wide  a  difference  between  walking  delegates 
as  there  is  between  statesmen  and  ward  heelers.  Public 
opinion  however,  releases  the  statesman  from  responsibility 
for  the  misdeeds  of  his  '"henchmen,"  while  it  condemns 
walking  delegates  in  wholesale  on  account  of  the  sins  of  a 
particular  few.  The  average  walking  delegate  is  much  like 
the  average  man  in  other  walks  of  life.  He  may  be  coarse, 
brutal  and  unscrupulous.  If  he  is,  he  is  likely  to  be  pilloried 
before  the  public  as  a  type  of  his  class,  and  others  of  his 
calling  who  are  honest,  honorable  men  suffer  in  reputation 
therefor. 

The  publisher  of  a  newspaper  is  a  man  of  education  and 
intelligence.  He  has  to  be  met  with  intelligence.  The  team- 
owner  is  apt  to  be  a  man  with  business  capacity  but  with  less 
politeness.  He  is  accustomed  to  order  his  teamsters  in 
language  he  and  they  understand.  He  has  in  all  probability 
driven  a  team  himself  at  some  time  in  his  career,  and  he 
deals  with  his  men  in  the  manner  experience  has  taught  him 
to  be  the  most  eflfective.  The  walking  delegate  meets  the 
team-owner,  not  with  soft  words,  but  with  plain  speech, 
coarse  speech,  man-to-man  fashion. 

A  notion  prevails  that  the  walking  delegate  is  an  agitator 
who  stirs  up  trouble  to  keep  himself  in  office.  It  is  an  er- 
ror. While  it  is  true  that  the  most  radical  man  in  the  union 
frequently  gets  elected,  it  is  equally  true  that  he  soon  be- 
comes conservative.  It  does  not  require  long  experience  in 
office  to  convince  him  that  radical  utterances  in  union  halls 
do  not  accomplish  results.     When  he  worked  in  a  factory,  he 


TRADE  UNIONS  251 

believed  that  there  was  only  one  side  to  the  labor  problem, 
and  that  the  employer  had  no  rights  which  the  workman 
was  bound  to  respect.  As  walking  delegate  he  gets  a  broad- 
er view  of  the  world  than  he  could  ever  have  obtained  when 
looking  through  the  factory  window.  Incidents  in  his  daily 
life  give  him  an  insight  into  human  nature  that  he  could 
never  have  acquired  at  the  work-bench.  He  learns  by 
practical  experience  that  the  existing  order  of  things  cannot 
be  changed  in  a  day  or  a  week.  He  finds  out  that  the  em- 
ployer really  has  rights  in  the  matter.  After  he  reaches 
this  stage,  which  takes  him  weeks  or  months,  according  to 
his  ability  and  to  the  conditions  which  he  has  had  to  con- 
front, he  changes  his  attitude  in  his  union  meetings  and  en- 
deavors to  hold  back  his  constituents,  instead  of  urging  them 
on  as  he  did  in  the  days  when  he  worked  in  a  factory. 

"I  would  like  to  hear  what  the  walking  delegate  has  to 
say  on  this  question,"  said  a  union  man  in  a  meeting  when 
a  wage  scale  was  under  discussion.  The  walking  delegate 
said  that  he  believed  the  employers  were  in  a  position  to 
resist  a  demand,  and  that  it  would  be  wisdom  to  let  the  old 
scale  stand  for  another  year. 

Hardly  had  he  resumed  his  seat  when  another  man  who 
wanted  to  be  elected  to  the  position  arose  and  said:  "It 
seepis  to  me  the  walking  delegate  does  not  w&nt  us  to  get 
more  money.  He  gets  more  than  the  scale  himself,  and 
does  not  care  about  the  rest  of  us.  We  are  entitled  to  ten 
cents  an  hour  more  than  we  are  getting,  and  there  is  no  rea- 
son why  we  shouldn't  have  it." 

The  speech  was  greeted  with  cheers.  A  strike  was  voted, 
and  shortly  after  it  was  called  the  walking  delegate  was 
asked  to  resign.  The  less  conservative  man  was  elected  in 
his  place.  The  strike  was  lost.  The  men  had  to  return  to 
work  at  the  old  scale,  while  they  sacrificed  some  of  the  fav- 
orable conditions  they  had  before  the  strike.  But  t^e  new 
walking  delegate  retained  his  position.  They  said  of  him: 
"Well,  he  wasn't  afraid  of  the  bosses,  anyway." 

This  illustration  is  not  unusual.  When  the  experienced 
walking  delegate  tries  to  keep  his  union  from  engaging  in  a 
strike  the  success  of  which  appears  doubtful,  he  is  accused 
of  being  "afraid  of  the  bosses,"  or  even  of  being  "bought." 


252  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

Seldom  does  any  position  appear  unreasonable  to  the  mem- 
bers of  a  union  when  they  are  in  a  meeting  hall.  They 
want  certain  things,  and  the  question  of  whether  the  de- 
mands are  reasonable  does  not  enter  into  their  calculations. 
"We  are  entitled  to  all  we  can  get,"  and  "We  never  got 
anything  without  fighting  for  it,"  are  the  rules  by  which  they 

go- 
One  of  the  most  interesting  studies  of  the  walking  dele- 
gate, and  one  that  is  not  well  understood,  is  his  attitude 
toward  the  "slugging"  of  non-union  men.  Wherever  sys- 
tematic "slugging"  of  non-union  men  is  carried  on  during  a 
strike,  it  can  always  be  charged  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
walking  delegate,  if  not  to  his  instigation. 

While  "slugging"  is  not  to  be  condoned  or  excused,  some- 
thing is  to  be  said,  not  in  defense  of  those  responsible  for  it, 
but  in  explanation.  It  is  commonly  supposed  that  the  men 
who  commit  assaults  on  non-unionists  during  strikes  are 
naturally  vicious  and  criminal.  That  the  assaults  are  vicious 
and  criminal  is  beyond  doubt,  and  that  the  "professional 
slugger"  is  a  low  type  of  the  human  race  may  be  admitted. 
Many  of  the  assaults  committed  during  strikes,  however, 
are  not  committed  by  "professional  sluggers,"  but  by  zealots 
who  are  neither  vicious  nor  criminal  in  intention.  Their 
action  proceeds  from  blind  devotion  to  a  cause.  The  walk- 
ing delegate  is  often  a  zealot.  He  lives  in  an  atmosphere  of 
unionism.  He  preaches  it  by  day  and  he  dreams  of  it  by 
night.  He  gradually  reaches  a  stage  where  unionism  be- 
comes to  him  more  than  a  religion.  Anything  done  in  the 
name  of  unionisrn  is  to  him  holy  if  he  believes  it  will  fur- 
ther the  cause.  At  sight  of  an  act  of  cruelty  to  a  horse  on 
the  street  he  will  protest,  while  he  will  look  upon  an  assault 
on  a  "scab"  with  gratification.  He  may  have  a  generous 
nature  and  a  sympathetic  heart,  and  yet  be  positively  cruel 
and  cold-blooded  in  furthering,  as  he  believes,  the  cause  of 
his  union. 

"You  are  a  strange  combination,"  I  remarked  to  a  walk- 
ing delegate.  "I  believe  you  could  beat  a  "scab"  and  repeat 
the  Lord's  prayer  at  the  same  time." 

"I  could,"  he  replied;  "and  I  believe  the  Lord  would  bless 
me  for  doing  it." 


TRADE  UNIONS  253 

In  many  respects  this  particular  walking  delegate  is  an 
ideal  citizen.  Devoted  to  his  wife  and  children  he  would 
rather  die  than  wrong  them.  He  does  not  taste  intoxicating 
liquor  nor  use  tobacco  in  any  form.  He  is  constantly  preach- 
ing temperance  among  his  fellows.  He  is  absolutely  honest, 
and  no  inducement  could  tempt  him  from  the  paths  of  recti- 
tude in  that  direction.  Human  misery  touches  him  deeply, 
and  he  will  give  from  his  wages,  at  the  expense  of  his  family, 
to  relieve  distress. 

Notwithstanding  these  admirable  traits  in  his  character, 
he  will  beat  a  "scab"  into  insensibility  and  take  pride  in  it. 
This  picture  is  no  exaggeration,  and  it  illustrates  the  blind 
fanaticism  I  have  attempted  to  describe. 

This  singular  and  dangerous  trait  of  human  nature  is  not 
produced  by  trades-unionism.  The  same  insensate  devotion 
which  places  an  organization  above  every  other  considera- 
tion was  seen  in  the  church  centuries  before  labor  unions  be- 
came a  factor  in  industrial  life.  It  is  observable  in  politics 
to-day. 

Few  walking  delegates  are  naturally  criminal  and  vicious. 
While  men  like  to  be  led,  they  follow  a  leader  because  of 
qualities  in  hijii  that  attract  them.  Cruelty  and  viciousness 
are  not  attractive  to  a  majority.  Neither  does  the  walking 
delegate  hold  his  position  through  fear  which  keeps  his 
constituents  from  opposing  him,  although  it  is  frequently 
charged  that  his  rule  is  despotic.  By  trickery  and  unscrupu- 
lous methods  he  may  occasionally  get  elected  to  office,  but 
unless  he  fairly  represents  a  majority  in  his  union,  his  career 
is  short. 

Usually  a  man  with  little  education,  the  walking  delegate 
is  often  called  upon  to  plead  the  cause  of  his  union  before 
men  of  trained  intellect.  That  he  acquits  -himself  creditably 
under  such  circumstances  many  employers  can  attest. 

Much  of  the  abuse  to  which  the  walking  delegate  is  sub- 
jected to-day  proceeds  from  ignorance.  A  majority  of  hu- 
man institutions,  although  founded  on  correct  principles, 
have  nevertheless  developed  abuses  in  the  course  of  their 
history.     The  labor  union  is  no  exception  to  this  rule. 

But  with  the  almost  general  recognition  of  labor  unions 
of  skilled  workers  by  employers,  there  has   come  a  change 


254  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

in  the  walking  delegate.     Commonly  speaking,  he  is  an  im- 
provement over  his  predecessor  of  former  days. 

"It  is  not  a  'bruiser,'  but  a  diplomat,  that  we  need  for  a 
walking  delegate,"  said  a  man  in  a  meeting  of  his  union 
recently,  when  nominations  for  walking  delegate  were  being 
made.  "The  day  of  'slugging'  is  past,  and  intelligence  must 
take  its  place.  We  must  select  our  representative  with  that 
idea  in  our  minds  if  we  are  to  meet  with  success." 

Outlook.  97:  465-71.  February  25,  191 1. 
Case    Against    the     Labor    Union.      Washington    Gladden. 

Another  fact  has  some  significance.  Twenty-five  years 
ago  there  was  much  inquiry  among  employers  about  indus- 
trial partnership,  or  profit-sharing,  as  it  was  rather  unhap- 
pily named.  I  had  written  something  about  it,  and  I  used 
to  get  letters  from  employers  very  frequently  asking  about 
the  working  of  such  plans.  These  methods  are  not  much 
talked  about  in  these  days.  The  impulse  to  associate  the 
men  with  the  masters  seems  to  have  spent  its  force.  The 
lessening  importance  of  this  feature  in  the  industries  of  the 
present  day  is  an  indication  of  the  growing  alienation  of  the 
two  classes. 

This  condition  of  estrangement — this  growing  hostility 
between  the  wage-workers  and  their  employers — is  the  se- 
rious fact  with  which  the  country  is  confronted.  The  fact 
may  be  questioned,  but  those  who  have  been  familiar  for 
thirty  years  with  the  drift  of  public  feeling  can  have  no 
doubt  about  it.  The  relations  between  the  men  who  work 
for  wages  and  the  men  who  pay  wages  are  distinctly  less 
friendly  than  they  were  twenty  years  ago. 

Who  is  to  blame  for  this?  Each  class  blames  the  other; 
probably  they  are  both  to  blame.  There  are  not  many  quar- 
rels in  which  the  fault  is  all  on  one  side.  Let  me  see  if  I 
can  state  the  case  as  it  lies  in  the  mind  of  the  average  em- 
ployer. There  are  many  employers  below  the  average,  in- 
tellectually and  morally,  whom  I  do  not  hope  to  convince: 
there  are  some  quite  above  the  average  who  do  not  need  to 
be  convinced;  I  am  not  trying  to  represent  either  of  these 


TRADE  UNIONS  255 

classes,  but  rather  that  large  majority  whose  opinions  and 
practices  tend  to  prevail  in  the  employing  class. 

In  the  judgment  of  these  gentlemen,  the  trouble  in  our 
industries  is  largely  due  to  trade  unions.  It  is  the  miscon- 
duct of  the  trade  unions  that  is  the  cause  of  all  this  aliena- 
tion and  hostility  which  now  prevails  in  the  industrial 
world.  Many  of  these  gentlemen  say  that  they  are  not  op- 
posed to  trade  unions;  that  they  believe  in  them  when  prop- 
erly constituted  and  managed.  Others  frankly  declare  that 
trade-unionism  in  all  its  moods  and  tenses  is  an  unmitigated 
evil;  that  the  only  hope  for  the  country  is  in  its  extermina- 
tion. I  have  lately  heard  employers  who,  on  all  other  sub- 
jects, are  as  kind-hearted  and  fair-minded  as  any  men  I 
know,  saying  that,  rather  than  permit  any  kind  of  trade 
union  to  get  a  footing  in  their  works,  they  would  close  their 
factories  and  go  out  of  business.  What  all  these  gentlemen 
chiefly  lay  emphasis  upon  is  the  misconduct  of  the  unions, 
many  instances  of  which  are  specified. 

The  indictment  is  easily  sustained.  It  cannot  be  denied 
that  in  the  attempt  to  protect  themselves  against  oppres- 
sion the  unions  have  made  many  rules  and  restrictions  which 
are  often  extremely  vexatious  to  all  who  deal  with  them. 
All  our  neighbors  are  ready  with  tales  of  the  annoyances 
and  injuries  which  they  have  suffered  by  the  enforcement  of 
these  petty  rules  by  trade  unions.  A  woman  of  fine  intelli- 
gence living  in  a  country  village  not  long  ago  rehearsed  to 
me  her  own  experience  with  a  gang  of  men  who  were  work- 
ing on  a  drain  that  ran  from  her  house  across  her  lawn.  The 
ditch  had  been  dug  and  the  pipe  nearly  laid  when  their  quit- 
ting time  came,  at  half-past  four  in  the  afternoon.  A  violent 
storm  was  approaching,  and  the  ditch  would  be  flooded  with 
water  and  great  inconvenience  and  expense  would  be  caused 
if  the  ditch  were  not  filled  in;  and  the  good  woman  begged 
these  men  to  throw  back  the  dirt;  but  they  sat  down  on  the 
bank  and  would  not  lift  a  finger.  She  took  up  the  shovel 
herself  and  filled  in  a  considerable  part  of  it,  but  they  re- 
fused to  come  to  her  relief.  Conduct  of  this  sort  is  not  rare 
on  the  part  of  trade-unionists,  and  it  has  done  much,  not 
only  to  exasperate  employers,  but  to  alienate  the  good  will 
of  the  community  at  large.     The  kind  of  rules  which  are  of- 


2S6  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

ten  insisted  upon,  regulating  the  co-operation  of  the  trades, 
forbidding  a  plasterer  to  drive  a  nail  or  a  plumber  to  do  the 
simplest  task  which  belongs  to  a  bricklayer,  rigidly  fixing 
the  hours  of  labor  and  making  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a  work- 
man to  finish  a  job  if  fifteen  minutes  of  work  remain  at  the 
closing  hour — all  such  petty  restrictions  are  a  just  cause  of 
complaint.  They  require  men  to  act  in  outrageously  dis- 
obliging and  unneighborly  ways;  they  are  a  training  in  ill 
nature  and  unfriendliness.  Cases  frequently  come  to  my 
knowledge  of  the  behavior  of  union  men  acting  under  the 
rules  of  their  trade,  by  which  intolerable  inconvenience  is 
inflicted,  not  only  upon  their  employers,  but  upon  customers 
for  whom  the  work  is  done.  When  I  hear  such  stories,  I  am 
able  to  understand  why  it  is  that  many  employers  and  many 
persons  who  do  not  belong  to  the  employing  class  are  so 
bitterly  hostile  to  trade  unions.  I  do  not  believe  that  these 
petty  restrictions  are  necessary  to  the  success  of  organized 
labor.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that  they  are  a  serious 
hindrance  in  the  way  of  its  progress.  The  small  advantages 
which  are  secured  by  means  of  them  are  more  than  neutral- 
ized by  the  ill  will  which  they  engender  in  the  breasts  of 
,  those  whose  good  will  the  unions  greatly  need. 

The  opposition  of  the  unions  to  prison  labor  is  another 
count  in  the  indictment.  This  rests  upon  a  narrow  view  of 
advantage  which  helps  to  discredit  the  unions.  Here,  again, 
a  small  gain  to  a  class  is  suffered  to  outweigh  a  heavy  loss  to 
society.  The  injury  which  prison  labor  could  inflict  upon  or- 
ganized labor  is  inconsiderable;  the  damage  which  would  be 
done  to  the  prisoners  by  keeping  them  in  idleness  is  enor- 
mous. The  anions  greatly  injure  their  own  cause  when 
they  adopt  a  policy  which  sacrifices  the  general  welfare  to 
their  own  interest  in  a  manner  so  flagrant. 

It  is  often  charged  against  the  unions  that  they  cripple 
production  by  restricting  the  output  of  industry  through  de- 
liberately reducing  the  speed  of  their  labor  and  conspiring 
to  make  the  job  last  as  long  as  possible.  There  are  those 
who  believe  that  it  is  the  conscious  policy  of  all  unionists  to 
get  the  largest  possible  wage  and  do  the  least  possible  work 
in  return  for  it.  I  think  it  quite  possible  that  there  arc  some 
workingmen  who  would  regard  this  as  a  legitimate  policy, 


TRADE  UNIONS  257 

just  as  there  are  not  a  few  employers  who  mean  to  give  the 
laborer  no  more  than  they  must  and  to  get  out  of  him  as 
much  work  as  they  can.  Undoubtedly  the  notion  has  pre- 
vailed among  workingmen  that  there  exists  a  definite  amount 
of  work  to  be  done,  and  that  it  is  good  policy  for  those  , 
who  are  working  by  the  hour  to  use  up  as  many  hours  as 
possible  in  the  performance  of  the  work.  That  policy,  how- 
ever, does  not  contro!  all  unionists.  The  more  intelligent 
among  them  are  fully  aware  of  its  foolishness.  "To  do  too 
much  work,"  says  John  Mitchell,  "is  supposed,  sometimes, 
to  be  'hogging  it,'  to  be  taking  the  bread  out  of  another 
man's  mouth.  This  may  occasionally  be  more  or  less  true, 
although  even  in  such  cases  the  employer  has  rights  which 
should  be  respected  and  a  man  should  do — as  he  ordinarily 
does  do — a  fair  day's  work  for  a  fair  day's  wage.  For  the 
whole  of  society,  however,  the  theory  is  not  true.  Within 
certain  limits,  the  more  work  done,  the  more  remains  to  be 
done.  The  man  who  earns  large  wages  in  a  blacksmith's 
shop  creates  a  demand  for  labor  when  he  spends  his  wages 
in  shoes,  clothes,  furniture,  or  books;  and  a  large  production 
tends  to  make  these  products  cheaper.  To  render  work 
more  expensive  merely  for  the  sake  of  restricting  output  is 
to  lessen  the  amount  of  work  that  will  be  done,  and  it  is 
only  by  doing  a  fair  day's  work  that  a  fair  day's  wage 
can  be  permanently  maintained.  The  wages  of  workingmen, 
sooner  or  later,  fall  with  any  unreasonable  restriction  on  the 
output;  and,  what  is  of  still  more  importance,  the  habit  of 
slowing  up  work  permanently  incapacitates  the  workman  for 
continued  and  intense  effort."  This  extract  shows  that  one 
labor  leader,  at  least,  recognizes  the  fatuity  of  do-lessness, 
and  a  fact  so  patent  is  not  likely  to  be  long  concealed  from 
the  rank  and  file  of  unionists. 

In  one  respect  the  policy  of  restriction  is  justifiable.  In 
piece-work  the  tendency  is  always  toward  an  unjust  and  op- 
pressive reduction  of  wages.  The  most  rapid  and  skillful 
workers  set  the  pace,  and  the  employer  is  inclined  to  fix  the 
price  so  that  they  can  make  only  a  reasonable  day's  wages. 
This  brings  the  average  workman's  earnings  down  to  a  very 
low  figure.  In  such  cases  the  protest  of  the  unions  against 
speeding  and    price-cutting  is   not   unreasonable.     Some   ad- 


258  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

justments  need  to  be  made  by  which  ipen  of  exceptional  skill 
may  get  the  advantage  of  their  superior  ability  without  un- 
fairly lowering  the  compensation  of  those  who  are  equally 
faithful  but  somewhat  less  expert. 

It  is,  however,  in  connection  with  the  enforcement  of  their 
demands  for  improved  conditions  by  means  of  strikes  that 
the  gravest  charges  are  brought  against  the  unions.  There 
are  those  who  deny  the  right  of  the  unions  to  use  the  wea- 
pon of  the  strike;  who  assert  that  the  resort  to  this  method 
of  industrial  warfare  is  wholly  unjustifiable.  The  discussion 
of  this  question  must  be  deferred  until  the  following  article; 
I  must  ask  my  readers  to  let  me  assume  that  this  right  be- 
longs to  organized  labor.  Perhaps  they  may  be  willing  to 
allow,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  if  one  man  may 
decline  to  work  for  less  than  a  certain  wage  or  more  than 
a  certain  number  of  hours,  several  men  may  unite  in  this 
refusal;  and  that  it  is  only  by  uniting  with  others  that  any 
workingman  can  secure  consideration  of  his  claims.  I  do 
not,  therefore,  admit  that  their  assertion  of  the  right  to 
strike  is  any  part  of  the  case  against  the  unions.  At  present 
I  am  concerned  with  those  concomitants  of  strikes  which 
are  rightly  held  up  to  reprobation — the  violence  and  brutal- 
ity, the  coercion  and  vandalism,  which  frequently  attend  in- 
dustrial conflicts. 

The  existence  of  such  conditions  is  undeniable  and  de- 
plorable, and  the  greater  part  of  the  odium  from  which 
unionism  is  suffering  in  the  public  mind  is  due  to- these  con- 
ditions. Workingmen  who  take  the  places  which  the  strik- 
ers have  left  are  insulted,  beaten,  sometimes  killed;  the 
property  of  the  employer  is  destroyed;  his  buildings  are 
burned  or  blown  up  by  dynamite;  his  business  is  assailed  by 
criminal  depredation. 

For  all  such  deeds  of  lawlessness  there  is  neither  justi- 
fication nor  excuse.  They  are  utterly  and  brutally  wrong; 
they  simply  mark  a  reversion  to  barbarism.  Men  have  a 
right  to  unite  in  a  demand  for  better  industrial  conditions 
and  to  unite  in  a  refusal  to  \\ork  unless  those  conditions 
are  supplied;  they  have  a  right  to  dissuade  other  men  from 
taking  the  places  which  they  have  vacated,  and  to  use  all 
the  moral  influence  at  their  command  to  this  end;  but  when 


TRADE  UNIONS  259 

they  resort  to  coercion  and  violence  in  enforcing  this  de- 
mand they  pass  beyond  the  limits  of  toleration,  and  become 
enemies  of  society.  There  is  no  room  in  American  civiliza- 
tion for  practices  of  this  nature;  and  the  unions  have  no 
business  on  their  hands  more  urgent  than  that  of  putting 
an  end  to  coercion  and  violence  in  connection  with  strikes, 
no  matter  at  what  cost  to  themselves.  They  can  never  win 
by  these  methods.  They  succeed  only  in  arraying  against 
themselves  the  bitter  and  determined  opposition  of  those 
classes  in  society  without  whose  support  they  cannot  hope 
to  establish  their  claim. 

It  is  not  the  enemies  of  unionism  who  say  this.  The  men 
who  have  the  best  right  to  speak  for  unionism  are  as  clear 
and  positive  in  their  denunciation  of  violence  as  could  be 
desired.     Take  these  words  of  John  Mitchell: 

"Above  all  and  beyond  all,  the  leader  intrusted  with  the 
conduct  of  a  strike  must  be  alert  and  vigilant  in  the  pre- 
vention of  violence.  The  strikers  must  be  made  constantly 
aware  of  the  imperative  necessity  of  remaining  peaceable. 
.  .  .  Under  no  circumstances  should  a  strike  be  allowed  to 
degenerate  into  violence.  ...  A  single  act  of  violence, 
while  it  may  deter  a  strike-breaker  or  a  score  of  them,  in- 
flicts much  greater  and  more  irreparable  damage  upon  the 
party  given  than  upon  the  party  receiving  the  blow.  .  .  . 
It  is  sometimes  claimed  that  no  strike  can  be  won  without 
the  use  of  physical  force.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  is  true, 
but  if  it  is,  it  is  better  that  the  strike  be  lost  than  that  it 
succeed  through  violence  and  the  commission  of  outrages. 
The  cause  of  unionism  is  not  lost  through  any  strike  or 
through  any  number  of  strikes,  and  if  it  were  true  that  all 
strikes  would  fail  if  physical  force  could  not  be  resorted  to, 
it  would  be  better  to  demonstrate  that  fact  and  to  seek 
remedy  in  other  directions  than  to  permit  strikes  to  degen- 
erate into  conflicts  between  armed  men.  .  .  .  The  employers 
are  perfectly  justified  in  condemning  as  harshly  as  they  de- 
sire the  acts  of  any  striker  or  strikers  who  are  guilty  of 
violence.  I  welcome  the  most  sweeping  denunciation  of 
such  acts,  and  the  widest  publicity  that  may  be  given  to 
them  by  the  press." 

I  hope  I  have  made  it  clear  that  the  resort  to  violence  is 


26o  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

not  an  essential  element  in  trade-unionism;  that  its  leading 
representatives  discountenance  and  denounce  it.  Some  of 
the  greatest  and  most  successful  strikes  have  been  attended 
by  little  violence.  This  was  true  of  the  anthracite  strike 
and  of  the  recent  strike  of  the  cloakmakers  in  New  York, 
In  connection  with  many  strikes  much  violence  has  oc- 
curred, and  it  is  the  common  habit  of  the  newspapers  and  of 
a  class  of  social  moralists  to  charge  all  this  upon  the  strik- 
ers. In  the  great  majority  of  cases,  however,  the  strikers 
have  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Much  of  this  lawless- 
ness is  the  work  of  disorderly  and  turbulent  persons  who 
have  no  interest  in  the  contest,  but  who  seize  upon  this  op- 
portunity for  indulging  their  destructive  propensities. 

All  that  I  now  wish  to  insist  upon,  however,  is  that  the 
strikers  in  any  given  labor  conflict  are  not  to  be  held  wholly 
responsible  for  the  superheated  social  atmosphere  which  sur- 
rounds them,  and  which  produces  the  acts  of  violence  by 
which  strikes  are  often  disfigured.  For  that  dangerous  so- 
cial condition  the  people  who  are  so  eager  to  put  down  the 
violence  with  an  iron  hand  might  often  find  themselves 
pretty  largely  to  blame.  And  in  such  a  disturbance  the  by- 
stander is  sometimes  reminded  of  the  story  of  the  wolf  who 
was  going  to  devour  the  lamb  because  the  lamb  had  roiled 
the  water.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  hot  words  of  the  strikers 
in  such  cases  often  add  fuel  to  the  flame  of  social  discontent, 
and  that  the  strike  is  made  the  occasion  of  outbreaks  of  dis- 
order; my  only  contention  is  that  the  deeper  causes  of  this 
angry  feeling  must  not  be  ignored.  No  strike  in  these  days 
is  an  isolated  phenomenon  with  a  purely  local  cause;  and 
no  one  can  rationally  deal  with  it  who  does  not  comprehend 
its  relation  to  the  prevailing  social  unrest. 

Two  other  counts  in  the  indictment  against  unionism 
must  be  treated  very  briefly.  The  first  is  the  sympathetic 
strike.  I  am  unable  to  join  in  the  unqualified  condemnation 
of  this  method  of  industrial  warfare.  The  act  of  a  trade 
union  in  supporting  an  affiliated  union  in  its  struggle  for 
better  conditions,  when  no  advantage  to  itself  can  be  hoped 
for  as  the  result  of  its  sacrifice,  is  certainly  generous  and 
heroic.  The  motive  is  not  unworthy.  It  may  be  doubted, 
however,  whether  it  is  wise  as  a  general  rule  for  the  workers 


TRADE  UNIONS  261 

in  one  union  to  take  up  the  quarrel  of  another  union.  They 
may  be  supposed  to  know  the  conditions  of  their  own  trade; 
it  is  nearly  impossible  for  them  to  know  equally  well  the 
conditions  of  other  trades,  and  they  may  be  supporting  de- 
mands which  are  unjust  and  impracticable.  Sometimes  such 
a  strike  involves  the  violation  of  a  contract,  expressed  or 
implied,  with  their  own  employers;  in  such  a  case  they  are 
putting  generosity  before  justice,  which  is  bad  morality. 
The  bituminous  coal  miners  were  right  when  they  refused 
to  violate  their  trade  agreement  with  the  operators  by  a 
sympathetic  strike  in  support  of  the  anthracite  miners.  And 
Air.  Mitchell  is  teaching  good  doctrine  when  he  says:  "There 
can  be  no  doubt  that,  upon  the  whole  and  in  the  long  run, 
the  policy  of  striking  in  sympathy  should  be  discouraged." 

The  other  case  referred  to  is  that  of  the  secondary  boy- 
cott. It  is  quite  true,  as  the  unionists  point  out,  that  the 
boycott,  in  one  form  or  another,  is  in  almost  universal  use. 
The  withdrawal  of  patronage  from  those  whose  conduct,  for 
one  reason  or  another,  we  disapprove,  is  not  a  thing  un- 
heard of.  It  is  by  no  means  uncommon  for  groups,  profes- 
sional or  commercial,  to  express  their  dislikes  after  this 
manner.  And  there  are  few  among  us  who  are  in  a  position 
to  throw  stones  at  a  trade  union  which  refuses  to  patronize 
an  employer  with  whom  it  is  in  controversy.  The  primary 
boycott  is  a  weapon  which  may  be  greatly  abused  and  which 
a  severe  morality  would  be  slow  to  commend,  but  in  exist- 
ing industrial  conditions  the  unions  cannot  be  severely  cen- 
sured for  using  it. 

The  secondary  boycott  is  quite  another  story.  The  un- 
ion may  boycott  the  employer  with  whom  it  is  at  war,  but 
when  it  proceeds  to  boycott  all  who  will  not  boycott  him,  it 
is  carrying  its  warfare  beyond  the  limits  of  toleration.  "To 
boycott  a  street  railway  which  overworks  its  employees  and 
pays  starvation  wages  is  one  thing,"  says  Mr.  Mitchell;  "to 
boycott  merchants  who  ride  in  the  cars  is  quite  another 
thing,  and  to  boycott  people  who  patronize  the  stores  of  the 
merchants  who  ride  in  boycotted  cars  is  still  another  and  a 
very  diflferent  thing."  The  dealer  who  can  be  coerced  by 
such  a  threat  is  a  man  whose  friendship  is  not  worth  much 
to  the  union,  and  the  enormous  accumulation  of  ill  will  in 


262  TRADE  UNIONS 

the  community  which  such  a  practice  always  engenders  is  a 
heavy  price  to  pay  for  such  advantages  as  it  may  secure. 
There  is  no  gainsaying  that  the  frequent  resort  to  the  secon- 
dary boycott  is  costing  the  unions  much  in  the  loss  of  friends 
whom  they  greatly  need. 

I  have  not  mentioned  all  the  charges  which  are  made 
against  imionism,  but  I  have  dealt,  as  I  believe,  with  the 
most  serious  of  them.  It  has  been  made  to  appear  that 
unionism  is  subject  to  some  serious  abuses.  I  hope  that  it 
has  also  appeared  that  these  abuses  are  not  ess'ential  parts 
of  the  system,  and  that  they  are  not  incurable.  Neither  the 
petty  restrictions  upon  work,  nor  the  ban  on  prison  labor, 
nor  the  lessening  of  the  output,  nor  the  violence  attendant 
upon  labor  struggles,  nor  the  sympathetic  strike,  nor  the 
secondary  boycott  can  be  counted  as  a  necessary  feature  of 
unionism.  All  are  perversions  of  its  true  functions,  excres- 
cences which  may  be  purged  away. 


DATE  DUE 


CAVLORO 

PRINTCOINU.S.A. 

AA      000  029  956    0 


.    t  " 


.aLIFORNI 


